Trump still standing, but damaged by Comey's testimony

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

If Congress wants to keep their jobs next year, they'll take up legislation reestablishing the office of the special council, and (ideally) appoint Meuller to it.  That would place him out of the reach of the entire executive branch.

And Trump won't veto it why?

[boomerangutang]

Just now, attrayant said:

If Congress wants to keep their jobs next year, they'll take up legislation reestablishing the office of the special council, and (ideally) appoint Meuller to it.  That would place him out of the reach of the entire executive branch.

True, but Republican members of Congress aren't going to play fair.  It's like bringing knives to a wrestling match.  

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

And Trump won't veto it why?

 

Then Trump digs himself into an even deeper hole, motivating still more members of Congress and hopefully coming up with a two-thirds, veto-busting majority.

[Si Thea01]

58 minutes ago, CLC Survivor said:

 

I have no direct intimate knowledge of the FBI procedures and organizational culture. I had heard that they did have degrees and a very cursory search confirmed this. That was all the time I was prepared to waste on the issue raised by the other poster. I do think you will find that while having a law degree may not be a requirement for entry, that they might expect one for those working in some areas. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if Comey had one.

Didn't sound like that in post #276.  Here you implied that you had knowledge of the FBI by telling me that all agents had degrees and now state that you did so after a cursory search. 

 

Maybe if you did an depth search before extolling what little, if any knowledge you have, then your credibility would not have gone to zero as it has now. You have a hide to critics what I stated and you had no knowledge that Comey was a lawyer. What a genius.

[Rob13]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Then Trump digs himself into an even deeper hole, motivating still more members of Congress and hopefully coming up with a two-thirds, veto-busting majority.

 GOP congressmen have already come out and told trump not to fire Mueller. I think it'd be the last straw for alot of reluctant trump supporters in the Capitol.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Rob13

[Thakkar]

Your presidency is going really well when you're retweeting a clip of Geraldo Rivera handicapping your chances of impeachment.

 

 

This is where we are. For Trump, A good day is when a two-bit a Fox "journalist" posits your chance of impeachment from 3% to 0%.

 

Me, I'd like to see the math behind those "percentages" —I bet that's some rabbit-holey Alice in Wonderland quantum math.

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Didn't sound like that in post #276.  Here you implied that you had knowledge of the FBI by telling me that all agents had degrees and now state that you did so after a cursory search. 

 

Maybe if you did an depth search before extolling what little, if any knowledge you have, then your credibility would not have gone to zero as it has now. You have a hide to critics what I stated and you had no knowledge that Comey was a lawyer. What a genius.

I've notice that it's generally the posters most sensitive to personal comments directed at them who are most likely to indulge in them.

[F4UCorsair]

2 hours ago, smotherb said:

oh, haven't you heard, Trump will have the 22nd amendment repealed and serve as long as he likes

 

I had heard that but thought it just another piece from 'someone close to the President', or 'anonymous', or an 'unnamed source', or 'a friend', or 'an unconfirmed rumour'.....you get the drift.

 

I discounted it because I thought he'd have had enough when he's 80.

Edited June 13, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[CLC Survivor]

51 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Oh, flip flopping now are we.  So it wasn't an attack, I was just failing to take responsibility for my mistake and I was wrong in referencing the posts of the member. And this from someone who deliberately avoids answering something that they cannot defend.  I would say you are the one who is deflecting, one who selectively chooses aspects in order to push their agenda without providing answers that they know they cannot justify.

 

Choosing aspects? Again with the generalizations, the non specifics. Who can answer such meaningless drivel? Aspects and Agendas.

 

And for future reference, you are not in any position to require any poster to answer or respond to anything.

 

I have highlighted your false claim that there is an investigation into the leaking of Trump's tax return for 2005, your inappropriate and meaningless comparison of your trivial experience in a foreign country to the situation with Comey's memo and your ongoing deflection off the topic through incessant generalized waffle. I will address what I deem fit, not what you insolently 'require' - a tactic I see you use against a number of posters with the 'please explains' and other demands.

[F4UCorsair]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Here's an interesting item from a close personal acquaintance of Donald Trump:

Friend Says Trump Is Considering Firing Special Counsel

A longtime friend to President Trump said on Monday that Mr. Trump was considering whether to fire Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating possible ties between the president’s campaign and Russian officials.

The startling assertion comes as conservative allies of Mr. Trump — who initially praised Mr. Mueller’s selection as special counsel — have begun trying to attack his credibility.

Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax Media who was at the White House on Monday, said on PBS’s “NewsHour” that Mr. Trump “is considering, perhaps, terminating the special counsel — I think he’s weighing that option.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/robert-mueller-trump.html

Whose 'friend'?  Yours??

Edited June 13, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, F4UCorsair said:

Whose 'friend'?

Donald Trump's friend, Christopher Ruddy.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-christopher-ruddy-1497313879-htmlstory.html

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

Then Trump digs himself into an even deeper hole, motivating still more members of Congress and hopefully coming up with a two-thirds, veto-busting majority.

That would seem sensible to people like you and me.  However, Trump is not sensible.  He gets a kick out of giving the one-finger-salute to Americans. He will continue to do things which hurt himself (and his inner honchos) politically, and things which pee on the Constitution.

 

Some Republicans will side with reason, but the majority, like Cruz, will side with The Divider, no matter what.   They lost their moral compasses somewhere on the sandlot before they got out of grammar school.

[boomerangutang]

On 6/11/2017 at 3:53 PM, Si Thea01 said:

 

What a vivid imagination.  The last paragraph is a lulu and irrelevant.  Why is it that you speak as if what you say is factual, has been proved and Trump in in the deep end.

 

"Additionally, there are another slew of issues re; other law-breaking, such as obstruction of justice, abusing the powers of the president, nepotism, self-enrichment using the prez office, laundering oligarch money, etc."

 

This part of your post is preposterous.  You speak as if totally qualified to exhort your virtuous propaganda in an open forum and expect that all an sundry believe it.  Please, you can talk about it all you want but let if be factual and not just your hoping and wishing. 

                            Trump is being subpoenaed left and right, as we speak - on various allegations of law-breaking.  The Russia-connection and the obstruction-of-justice are just two.  Another is the Treasure Dept looking into possible laundering of oligarch funds.  Yet another is the District Attorneys of Maryland and Wash DC filing papers recently - formally claiming Trump is using his office for self-enrichment.  

 

James Buchanan became 15th POTUS in 1856.  A big difference between Buchanan and Trump is, Buchanan has a whole lot of experience as a politician, whereas Trump has none.  Here's how a website describes the scene when Buchanan left office - to make way for newly elected Abe Lincoln. . . . . 

"Four years later Buchanan left the presidency in disgrace, condemned by Republicans, vilified by northern Democrats, and dismissed even by the southerners whom he had tried so hard to please and whose personal affection he craved. The president, for all his prospects in 1856, had been unable, as he had pledged in his oath of office, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."

 

What immediately followed was the US Civil War.

[smotherb]

1 hour ago, F4UCorsair said:

I had heard that but thought it just another piece from 'someone close to the President', or 'anonymous', or an 'unnamed source', or 'a friend', or 'an unconfirmed rumour'.....you get the drift.

 

I discounted it because I thought he'd have had enough when he's 80.

I imagine there are many Americans who have had enough of Trump already--and my remark only poked fun at your suggestion of a second term.

[Rob13]

2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

had heard that but thought it just another piece from 'someone close to the President', or 'anonymous', or an 'unnamed source', or 'a friend', or 'an unconfirmed rumour'.....you get the drift.

 

The drift is it shows you speak without knowing the facts or understanding what you're reacting to. I've never seen a president whose supporters are so vocal and so ill informed as  the trumpies.

 

At some point you should quit simply reacting to his opponents long enough to sit down and gather some real information so you can talk about your candidate intelligently rather than just slinging insults and dismissals at them.

 

. 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Rob13

[Thakkar]

https://youtu.be/VoowEWXYIrU

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/trump-makes-bizarre-claims-at-press-event-as-cabinet-members-take-turns-praising-him.html

 

Watch the bizarre vid.

Trump demands a public ass kissing from each cabinet member.

This from a guy who claims he would never ask for a pledge of loyalty from Comey.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Thakkar

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

https://youtu.be/VoowEWXYIrU

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/trump-makes-bizarre-claims-at-press-event-as-cabinet-members-take-turns-praising-him.html

 

Watch the bizarre vid.

Trump demands a public ass kissing from each cabinet member.

This from a guy who claims he would never ask for a pledge of loyalty from Comey.

Yes, truly bizarre. This would be bizarre from everybody, let alone from somebody who has achieved nothing, except stoked more unrest in the ME, dropped a few bombes on Syria and cancelled Paris.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

                            Trump is being subpoenaed left and right, as we speak - on various allegations of law-breaking.  The Russia-connection and the obstruction-of-justice are just two.  Another is the Treasure Dept looking into possible laundering of oligarch funds.  Yet another is the District Attorneys of Maryland and Wash DC filing papers recently - formally claiming Trump is using his office for self-enrichment.  

 

James Buchanan became 15th POTUS in 1856.  A big difference between Buchanan and Trump is, Buchanan has a whole lot of experience as a politician, whereas Trump has none.  Here's how a website describes the scene when Buchanan left office - to make way for newly elected Abe Lincoln. . . . . 

"Four years later Buchanan left the presidency in disgrace, condemned by Republicans, vilified by northern Democrats, and dismissed even by the southerners whom he had tried so hard to please and whose personal affection he craved. The president, for all his prospects in 1856, had been unable, as he had pledged in his oath of office, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."

 

What immediately followed was the US Civil War.

Thanks for the history lesson.  Subpoenaed by whom and when?  Well why not bring up other matters, haven't been able to  score on those earlier allegations, lets make up other matters, and get some fools to investigate.  A fishing expedition so far. 

[Thakkar]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, truly bizarre. <snip>

 

More bizzare than this

 

 

[Rob13]

58 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Watch the bizarre vid.

I'm gotta go puke now.

[Thakkar]

4 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

I'm gotta go puke now.

Save it for the State of the Union—there might be a puke shortage!

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/trump-makes-bizarre-claims-at-press-event-as-cabinet-members-take-turns-praising-him.html

 

Watch the bizarre vid.

Trump demands a public ass kissing from each cabinet member.

This from a guy who claims he would never ask for a pledge of loyalty from Comey.

 

For those not wanting to watch the video, here's a picture that summarizes the highlights:

 

 

[Thakkar]

3 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

For those not wanting to watch the video, here's a picture that summarizes the highlights:

 

 

 

At least this creature had the self-respect to do it himself and in private rather than ask his whole pride to do it to him live. On camera. For posterity. For ten whole minutes.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Thakkar

[Thakkar]

Colbert has some fun with this as well

 

 

[Rob13]

Chuck Schumer's rebuttal.....

 

 

[SheungWan]

The silver bullet from Comey's testimony was the 'loyalty' story. The message was that this behaviour of Trump must be stopped. And now its out there. Trump obviously denied the story but for sure he heard it. And his actual response to Comey was that he is going to continue. Nobody is going to stop him. How so? Humiliate the Presidential Cabinet members and make them grovel their loyalty in front of him and the media. That video above of The Untouchables with Al Capone around the table? Nailed it.

[boomerangutang]

                                  Two heads of top security organizations testified before congress the day before Comey, and both were asked whether they were pressured by Trump to either 

A:  pledge allegiance to Trump and/or

B:  put pressure on the FBI to lighten up on the Russia/Trump investigation

 

                         Both heads refused to answer.  They didn't even have any good reasons for refusing.  By refusing to answer, they're essentially admitting there was pressure from Trump to break the law.  If that was not the case, they would have gladly said "no" to both those questions.  At the least, it was 'Contempt of Congress.'

 

                       There are heaps of offal waiting to descend down the sewer tubes on the Trump-Russia imbroglio.  Did everyone forget that Trump stated (in Dec or Jan?) that neither he nor anyone in his campaign had anything to do with the Russians in 2016.    Americans have become so inured by Trump's piles of lies, that they barely notice his newly minted lies for more than a day or two - because there's such a flurry of them.

 

                      Future headlines about this imbroglio will have the word 'clemency'.   That word is not used much currently, but when Trump and his cohorts get closer to being handcuffed, we'll be using that word in nearly every sentence (pun intended).  

[pegman]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                                  Two heads of top security organizations testified before congress the day before Comey, and both were asked whether they were pressured by Trump to either 

A:  pledge allegiance to Trump and/or

B:  put pressure on the FBI to lighten up on the Russia/Trump investigation

 

                         Both heads refused to answer.  They didn't even have any good reasons for refusing.  By refusing to answer, they're essentially admitting there was pressure from Trump to break the law.  If that was not the case, they would have gladly said "no" to both those questions.  At the least, it was 'Contempt of Congress.'

 

                       There are heaps of offal waiting to descend down the sewer tubes on the Trump-Russia imbroglio.  Did everyone forget that Trump stated (in Dec or Jan?) that neither he nor anyone in his campaign had anything to do with the Russians in 2016.    Americans have become so inured by Trump's piles of lies, that they barely notice his newly minted lies for more than a day or two - because there's such a flurry of them.

 

                      Future headlines about this imbroglio will have the word 'clemency'.   That word is not used much currently, but when Trump and his cohorts get closer to being handcuffed, we'll be using that word in nearly every sentence (pun intended).  

Forget clemency, LOCK HIM UP!

[Prbkk]

CNN running with headline "Cluelessness Runs in the Family", in respect of Eric Trump. The gloves are off now and won't be going back on.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, pegman said:

Forget clemency, LOCK HIM UP!

For a couple of days it seemed as though the anti Trumpers were restraining themselves on the meaningless anti Trump rants, and actually debating the situation, but I see it didn't last long. Back to pointless calls for him to be impeached/ locked up/ etc without putting forth any actual evidence to support their case.

It's that sort of posting that reduces the number of contributers on threads like this to the same few egging each on to see who can come out with the most outlandish Trump put downs.

Carry on, but you ain't impressing anyone that is undecided.