Do you think Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?

[Thakkar]

41 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Please advise where I can get a list of 'approved sources' - that are not anti-Trump sources.

 

Don’t waste your time. ThaiVisa is part of The Deep State, funded by Soros, naturally. They’re everywhere, I tell you. It’s The Gays—they’re converting everyone, god help us.

[Slip]

This is pretty old and now, and I'm sure some of our GOP supporters would disagree with some or all of it, but it has some interesting ideas that support the proposition that Trump will not be impeached.

https://www.damemagazine.com/2017/02/17/why-gop-still-supporting-trump

[Andaman Al]

3 hours ago, Slip said:

This is pretty old and now, and I'm sure some of our GOP supporters would disagree with some or all of it, but it has some interesting ideas that support the proposition that Trump will not be impeached.

https://www.damemagazine.com/2017/02/17/why-gop-still-supporting-trump

A frightening paragraph from the article is in fact the very last one - spoiler alert !!

 

Quote

So the next time Congress declines to investigate Russian influence or ethics breaches by the Trump administration, just remember: they’re getting exactly what they want out of this arrangement, and will continue to enact their far-right agenda as long as they have the votes. Congress, Trump, and Putin all back the same vision of a Christian, white nationalist, authoritarian world order that will protect the wealth of oligarchs while suppressing women, people of color, LGBTQ people, and anyone else they perceive as a threat to their control.

I think back in February the article was absolutely accurate in terms of its arguments, however, 7 more months on I think that Trump has pi**ed off so many people in the GOP that there are quite a few that would be at the front of the queue to impeach him now.

[Opl]

3 hours ago, Slip said:

This is pretty old and now, and I'm sure some of our GOP supporters would disagree with some or all of it, but it has some interesting ideas that support the proposition that Trump will not be impeached.

https://www.damemagazine.com/2017/02/17/why-gop-still-supporting-trump

Very interesting article, thank you

"he could serve as an ideal Trojan Horse for their extremist agenda. The fact that many on the right already had a strange admiration for Putin, and that both white supremacist and fundamentalist Christian supporters had close ties to Russia probably served to lessen concern among GOP electeds that their candidate might be compromised by a foreign nation." 

 

[jumbo]

Anyone remember John Gotti , the tevlon don, this is the presidential version... slick and greasy

[Scott]

Posts removed.  

[craigt3365]

18 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Please advise where I can get a list of 'approved sources' - that are not anti-Trump sources.

 

That list is getting smaller and smaller every day.  Like Breitbart. LOL.  He's only got himself to blame.

[CaptHaddock]

Much as I loathe Trump, I also despise the CIA and the rest of the secret government particular criminals like James Clapper who should be in prison for perjuring himself before Congress instead of retired on a generous pension.  So, it is well to be suspicious about claims coming out of the intelligence community, a number of which have been shown to be false.

 

For instance, there was a lot of ballyhoo about why didn't Homeland Security notify the 21 states earlier that the Russians had tampered with their election process.  Now, it turns out that both California and Wisconsin were probably not victimized by Russia as the DHS claimed. 

 

This ongoing process of attack by intelligence community may turn out to be like G. W. Bush's Iraq war, based on lies.  It's hard to know.

 

So, in the battle between Godzilla and Mothra, who do you root for?

 

More on debunked claims of Russia activity:

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

[boomerangutang]

12 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

A frightening paragraph from the article is in fact the very last one - spoiler alert !!

I think back in February the article was absolutely accurate in terms of its arguments, however, 7 more months on I think that Trump has pi**ed off so many people in the GOP that there are quite a few that would be at the front of the queue to impeach him now.

                      Republican politicians are going to stand behind Trump until the bitter end.  Then they'll collapse on him like a wall of bricks.  Currently, only 3 Senators have the courage to stand up to Colossus Trump (McCain and the 2 women who voted against Trump-care).  The other 47 quiver and quake, but won't do the right thing, until (in accordance with their herd mentality) all the others give in.

 

                      Right wing voters brought us the disaster called Trump, by being so prejudiced, fearful, and easily-duped by a world-class shyster.  The same voters don't mind a self-admitted pussy-grabber, cheater-on-wives, and wife-beater as top banana.  It says a lot about right-wingers' moral code.   Sad times for the USA.

 

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

Much as I loathe Trump, I also despise the CIA and the rest of the secret government particular criminals like James Clapper who should be in prison for perjuring himself before Congress instead of retired on a generous pension.  So, it is well to be suspicious about claims coming out of the intelligence community, a number of which have been shown to be false.

 

For instance, there was a lot of ballyhoo about why didn't Homeland Security notify the 21 states earlier that the Russians had tampered with their election process.  Now, it turns out that both California and Wisconsin were probably not victimized by Russia as the DHS claimed. 

 

This ongoing process of attack by intelligence community may turn out to be like G. W. Bush's Iraq war, based on lies.  It's hard to know.

 

So, in the battle between Godzilla and Mothra, who do you root for?

 

More on debunked claims of Russia activity:

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

There is no doubt Russia attempted to hijack the elections.  That's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.  Unless you follow conspiracy theory websites.  Even Putin admits it!! LOL

 

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2017/06/02/putin-russian-hackers-tampered-with-us-election-nigel-farage-person-of-interest-fbi/

 

Quote

 

Vladimir Putin admits Russian hackers may have meddled in US election

Vladimir Putin has conceded  “patriotically minded” Russian hackers could have tampered with the US election, as former UKIP leader Nigel Farage is named as a person of interest in the FBI probe into the matter.

 

 

 

[Srikcir]

21 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

why didn't Homeland Security notify the 21 states earlier that the Russians had tampered with their election process.

There was no evidence that there was Russian tampering in the actual voting process. That was the federal government's primary concern given the short time available before the November elections. The governors and attorney generals of each state agreed that no tampering at the polls was done.

 

What was apparent in 2016 was some efforts by Russia to influence American voters to vote against Hillary through an internet-based propaganda campaign. It wasn't until 2017 that the intelligence agencies and FBI had more information as to the detailed extent of Russia's creation and manipulation of information directed through the internet to influence American voters.

 

No contradiction occurred as you suggest.

[Srikcir]

On 9/28/2017 at 4:47 PM, iReason said:

A lawless rogue inhabits the White House.

Trump recently deleted his tweets supporting the losing Alabama candidate Strange.

Is Trump playing the movie character Judge Dread - "I am the law!"

 

[craigt3365]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Quote

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

Anybody who denies this is just like Trump.  Ignoring the facts.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-russia/index.html

Quote

 

Rubio -- a former primary opponent of President Donald Trump -- announced at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Russian meddling that during last year's election his former campaign staff was targeted by hackers twice.

Rubio said the attacks came from computers using IP addresses located in Russia -- once in July of last year, after he announced he would run again for the Senate and again, Wednesday morning.

 

 

[CaptHaddock]

25 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

There was no evidence that there was Russian tampering in the actual voting process. That was the federal government's primary concern given the short time available before the November elections. The governors and attorney generals of each state agreed that no tampering at the polls was done.

 

What was apparent in 2016 was some efforts by Russia to influence American voters to vote against Hillary through an internet-based propaganda campaign. It wasn't until 2017 that the intelligence agencies and FBI had more information as to the detailed extent of Russia's creation and manipulation of information directed through the internet to influence American voters.

 

No contradiction occurred as you suggest.

The question was that there may have been Russian tampering in the voter rolls, i.e. disqualifying voters, not in changing vote totals.  Here's an article from Bruce Schneier:  If true, that degree of tampering would have gone beyond influencing opinion or stealing HC's emails.

 

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/06/nsa_document_ou.html

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

There was no evidence that there was Russian tampering in the actual voting process. That was the federal government's primary concern given the short time available before the November elections. The governors and attorney generals of each state agreed that no tampering at the polls was done.

What was apparent in 2016 was some efforts by Russia to influence American voters to vote against Hillary through an internet-based propaganda campaign. It wasn't until 2017 that the intelligence agencies and FBI had more information as to the detailed extent of Russia's creation and manipulation of information directed through the internet to influence American voters.

No contradiction occurred as you suggest.

There's a difference between 'tampering' in the election process, and whether it translated to votes changing from HRC's to Trump's column.

 

There is no doubt whatsoever that Russians tampered with the US campaign. Even right-wingers admit that, as well as all Federal security agencies.   As for affecting votes:  OF COURSE IT AFFECTED NUMBERS OF VOTES.  We'll never know the precise numbers, but surely Russian-Trumpster meddling in the campaign accounted for hundreds of thousands of votes.  

 

The people who were duped into believing Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, are the same sorts of people who were easily duped into believing HRC kept teenage sex slaves chained in the WH basement.  There is no limit to the mean-spirited nonsense that right-wing religionists will gobble up as truth.  If Trump told them HRC was actually Elvis with teeth made from moon rocks, the same idiot nutcases on the right would believe it.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by boomerangutang

[Srikcir]

37 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

The question was that there may have been Russian tampering in the voter rolls, i.e. disqualifying voters, not in changing vote totals.  Here's an article from Bruce Schneier:  If true, that degree of tampering would have gone beyond influencing opinion or stealing HC's emails.

 

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/06/nsa_document_ou.html

Sooo shocking - an alleged 122 targeted voter roll tamperings out of about 136,600,000 total votes cast from almost 219,000,000 registered voters.

Doesn't even fall within the range of statistical error - more of a random aberration.

 

[boomerangutang]

3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Sooo shocking - an alleged 122 targeted voter roll tamperings out of about 136,600,000 total votes cast from almost 219,000,000 registered voters.

Doesn't even fall within the range of statistical error - more of a random aberration.

Your stats aren't convincing.  Plus each 'voter roll' could contain tens of thousands of voters.

 

One of the many interesting things that are coming out now is the revelation that the states voter data which were targeted for Russian (and right wing tricksters') astute attention, were the states where Trump won by thin margins. The targeting was done with FB and Twitter.  How did Russian dirty tricksters know so precisely - which states/districts to target?  They must have had help from Trump insiders and other dirty tricksters, like Roger Stone, Kushner, Don Jr., Manafort and Bannon.

 

It's a weird dynamic, because cheating and lying is completely tolerated in US campaigning. Indeed, it's expected.  So, the trick for prosecutors, is to try to gauge where the line has been crossed over, between lying/cheating - to breaking voting laws.

 

Now, prosecutors are on a path to see to what extent FB and Twitter colluded with dirty tricksters to break election laws.  Just as important, they want to find how much Trumpsters were involved, and follow the money trails.    

 

Don't be surprised if Twitter and FB are sued by the Feds for knowingly publishing false info (submitted by foreign entities) which skewed the election.

 

 

[CaptHaddock]

12 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Sooo shocking - an alleged 122 targeted voter roll tamperings out of about 136,600,000 total votes cast from almost 219,000,000 registered voters.

Doesn't even fall within the range of statistical error - more of a random aberration.

 

Read the Glenn Greenwald piece about the various fake news articles on Russian activity that have since been debunked.

 

Keep in mind that we have never actually seen any evidence for any of these claims, some of which may well be true.  In fact, it is not clear what actual evidence would look like, computer files?  I am not claiming that Russian did nothing illegal, but that we cannot trust the intelligence community, so we don't and will probably never know what is true and what is made up.

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

 

Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid, causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to publish a massive editor’s note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the internet and spreading of “Fake News” based on an anonymous group’s McCarthyite blacklist that counted sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?

 

Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near? Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN’s network? And then there’s the huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial, unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch and Claude “TrueFactsStated” Taylor?

[craigt3365]

33 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

Read the Glenn Greenwald piece about the various fake news articles on Russian activity that have since been debunked.

 

Keep in mind that we have never actually seen any evidence for any of these claims, some of which may well be true.  In fact, it is not clear what actual evidence would look like, computer files?  I am not claiming that Russian did nothing illegal, but that we cannot trust the intelligence community, so we don't and will probably never know what is true and what is made up.

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

 

Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid, causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to publish a massive editor’s note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the internet and spreading of “Fake News” based on an anonymous group’s McCarthyite blacklist that counted sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?

 

Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near? Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN’s network? And then there’s the huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial, unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch and Claude “TrueFactsStated” Taylor?

Wow.  There's lots of evidence out there.  But you don't seem to like any of it.  Just news stories trying to debunk it.

 

As for that Slate article, it's seems they were on to something.  Interesting you dismiss findings from the best authority on it. LOL

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

Quote

In the world of DNS experts, there’s no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, “The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion.

 

An excellent article. As it says, no smoking gun, but along the same lines as others are pursing.  Plus, that connection with Alpha bank was all over MSM.

 

You're grasping at straws.

[CaptHaddock]

27 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Wow.  There's lots of evidence out there.  But you don't seem to like any of it.  Just news stories trying to debunk it.

 

As for that Slate article, it's seems they were on to something.  Interesting you dismiss findings from the best authority on it. LOL

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

 

An excellent article. As it says, no smoking gun, but along the same lines as others are pursing.  Plus, that connection with Alpha bank was all over MSM.

 

You're grasping at straws.

You don't seem to grasp what I am saying.  I am not dismissing the claims of various kinds of Russian interference nor of a possibly criminal relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  What I am saying is that the truth is unknowable.  That is just a fact.  So, a group of computer scientists, with names like "Tea Leaves" for example, claim they have found evidence of DNS activity pointing to a connection between Trump Tower and Alpha Bank.  Did you see the DNS transaction log?  Could you understand it if you did see it?  If you did understand it, could you trust that it was genuine?  This is not evidence like O. J. Simpson's glove, is it?  The glove we can understand and we can review the chain of custody to make our own judgment if its significance is likely to be as it is presented.  There will never be evidence of that kind in any cybercrime situation.

 

So, in the complete absence of evidence that I believe I might actually be able to evaluate on my own, I have to trust someone else's evaluation.  Do I trust "Tea Leaves" or James Clapper or Donald Trump?  Certainly not.  So, we will never know.  In the runup to the last Iraq war we had Colin Powell lying through his teeth to the UN about the weapons of mass destruction.

 

At the same time there is abundant evidence of various crimes committed by Trump for which he should be punished.  To take one minor example, why isn't he in jail for swindling the victims of his "Trump University" scam to the tune of $25 million at least?  He should be removed from office for his non-feasance in directing aid to Puerto Rico.  And on and on.

 

With respect to crimes for which there is not and will never be any actual evidence we should cast a skeptical eye, which is not the same as claiming the crimes did not occur.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

You don't seem to grasp what I am saying.  I am not dismissing the claims of various kinds of Russian interference nor of a possibly criminal relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  What I am saying is that the truth is unknowable.  That is just a fact.  So, a group of computer scientists, with names like "Tea Leaves" for example, claim they have found evidence of DNS activity pointing to a connection between Trump Tower and Alpha Bank.  Did you see the DNS transaction log?  Could you understand it if you did see it?  If you did understand it, could you trust that it was genuine?  This is not evidence like O. J. Simpson's glove, is it?  The glove we can understand and we can review the chain of custody to make our own judgment if its significance is likely to be as it is presented.  There will never be evidence of that kind in any cybercrime situation.

 

So, in the complete absence of evidence that I believe I might actually be able to evaluate on my own, I have to trust someone else's evaluation.  Do I trust "Tea Leaves" or James Clapper or Donald Trump?  Certainly not.  So, we will never know.  In the runup to the last Iraq war we had Colin Powell lying through his teeth to the UN about the weapons of mass destruction.

 

At the same time there is abundant evidence of various crimes committed by Trump for which he should be punished.  To take one minor example, why isn't he in jail for swindling the victims of his "Trump University" scam to the tune of $25 million at least?  He should be removed from office for his non-feasance in directing aid to Puerto Rico.  And on and on.

 

With respect to crimes for which there is not and will never be any actual evidence we should cast a skeptical eye, which is not the same as claiming the crimes did not occur.

And as that article says, you'll never know all the details.  They'll never be made public.  I trust the statements made by the intelligence community.  Some won't. 

 

Please, don't bring up Iraq.  It ruins your argument.

[CaptHaddock]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

And as that article says, you'll never know all the details.  They'll never be made public.  I trust the statements made by the intelligence community.  Some won't. 

 

Please, don't bring up Iraq.  It ruins your argument.

There is a big difference, which apparently escapes you, between not knowing "all the details" and not knowing any of the details.

 

The Iraq War is an excellent example.  Finding evidence of WMD was a "slam dunk" according to CIA Director George Tenet.  But, turns out there were no WMDs.  So, upwards of one million Iraqis die, about whom the one thing we do know for sure is that not a single one of them was responsible for 9/11. 

 

But then there is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which the intelligence community assured us adn the Congress was clear aggression by North Viet Nam.  Only that turned out to be fabricated. 

 

I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe anything the CIA has to say, even though some of it is probably true.

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

There is a big difference, which apparently escapes you, between not knowing "all the details" and not knowing any of the details.

 

The Iraq War is an excellent example.  Finding evidence of WMD was a "slam dunk" according to CIA Director George Tenet.  But, turns out there were no WMDs.  So, upwards of one million Iraqis die, about whom the one thing we do know for sure is that not a single one of them was responsible for 9/11. 

 

But then there is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which the intelligence community assured us adn the Congress was clear aggression by North Viet Nam.  Only that turned out to be fabricated. 

 

I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe anything the CIA has to say, even though some of it is probably true.

 

 

Gulf of Tonkin?  Good gosh.  How about let's go back to the battle of 1812. LOL.  You're way off topic.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

And as that article says, you'll never know all the details.  They'll never be made public.  I trust the statements made by the intelligence community.  Some won't. 

 

Please, don't bring up Iraq.  It ruins your argument.

There is a big difference, which apparently escapes you, between not knowing "all the details" and not knowing any of the details.

 

The Iraq War is an excellent example.  Finding evidence of WMD was a "slam dunk" according to CIA Director George Tenet.  But, turns out there were no WMDs.  So, upwards of one million Iraqis die, about whom the one thing we do know for sure is that not a single one of them was responsible for 9/11. 

 

But then there is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which the intelligence community assured us adn the Congress was clear aggression by North Viet Nam.  Only that turned out to be fabricated. 

 

I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe anything the CIA has to say, even though some of it is probably true.

 

 

 

Craig:

 

Capt Haddock is on the money here! # 3281 is on the nose also.

 

We know that Trump s a lying, conniving, criminal SOB (Presidential precedent to use this term)  but don't let the natural mistrust in him we should have persuade you that we should trust people that have also been lying for years, and in the case of the CIA those lies have cost an untold number of lives, both US and foreign. The CIA are the most dishonest intelligence agency that exists, don't let Trumps crimes put them on a pedestal they do not deserve to be on.

[Andaman Al]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Gulf of Tonkin?  Good gosh.  How about let's go back to the battle of 1812. LOL.  You're way off topic.

No Battle in 1812 was fabricated to drag a country in to a war that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of its own son and daughters - and as for the Vietnamese the number is large. Tonkin is still within the lifetime of many of our people. It was essentially a crime against humanity and the organisation involved in staging it, has not to our knowledge changed their modus operandi. It would have been more appropriate to have had Trump as head of the CIA rather than POTUS.

 

I think all that Haddock is trying to say is there is lots of stuff that they can jail Trump for, and it will all come out in the wash after an investigation by people sworn in to do the job professionally and faithfully on behalf of the American people. There is no need to put any weight on the word of organisations that seem to have a sworn objective to keep the USA in a state of war and conflict. I would not trust ANY statement from the CIA or anyone that does or has led it.

[heybruce]

On 9/29/2017 at 2:31 AM, ELVIS123456 said:

Please advise where I can get a list of 'approved sources' - that are not anti-Trump sources.

 

The anti-Trump reporters have a big advantage, they have a high-level source in the White House that delivers lots of anti-Trump material.  The source's name is Donald Trump.

Edited September 30, 2017 by heybruce

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

Craig:

 

Capt Haddock is on the money here! # 3281 is on the nose also.

 

We know that Trump s a lying, conniving, criminal SOB (Presidential precedent to use this term)  but don't let the natural mistrust in him we should have persuade you that we should trust people that have also been lying for years, and in the case of the CIA those lies have cost an untold number of lives, both US and foreign. The CIA are the most dishonest intelligence agency that exists, don't let Trumps crimes put them on a pedestal they do not deserve to be on.

It's not just the CIA who's reporting on this.  There are dozens of sources.  All pointing to the same thing.  I've not read the CIA report.  But I guess it's in line with everybody else.  Sorry, but no denying somebody in Russia did the hacking.

 

P.S. I'm no fan of the CIA either.  But facts are facts.

[Andaman Al]

24 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

It's not just the CIA who's reporting on this.  There are dozens of sources.  All pointing to the same thing.  I've not read the CIA report.  But I guess it's in line with everybody else.  Sorry, but no denying somebody in Russia did the hacking.

 

P.S. I'm no fan of the CIA either.  But facts are facts.

No need to say sorry, In no way do I consider that the Russians were not involved. I believe it 100%. I think Mueller and his team will come out with all the evidence. I was simply agreeing with Haddock, there is plenty of broad day light evidence on other things to bury Trump now and we need the concrete evidence on Russia to come out. All of the circumstantial evidence from various investigative journalists shows that there is in fact a raging fire below the thick layer of smoke. I do not necessarily put any weight on what Clapper says as he was heading an organisation known for it's deception (of it's own nations people), it's a little of the boy that cried wolf story. It will all come out in the wash, Trump will be shown to be a traitor, those in his administration will be guilty of aiding and abetting and his supporters can hang their heads for years as enablers of a traitor whose intent was to destroy his own nation in return for more greenbacks in his bank account.

[Andaman Al]

37 minutes ago, hstew said:

even sadder if clinton the criminal somehow manged to defeat Trump.

Can you list and give evidence to show guilt of the crimes you accuse her of? If not then man-up, retract, apologise and shut up about her.

[Andaman Al]

What's the deepest place on the earth? I think it is the Mariana Trench, well that is about how deep Trump is going to be buried.