They still do
3 Likes
I am not one of those guys who thinks everything Trump does is some form of 4D chess.
But his tweeting is one of those instances where he is using it to his advantage
You guys literally have nothing on Trump. The fact this Russia stuff has gone on this long is the true embarrassment.
The former head of the FBI has stated there’s no collusion and no obstruction yet there’s now a special counsel?
This is ridiculous
Like this one where Comey’s lies vindicate him?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/873120139222306817
Huh?
It’s true, I have literally nothing on Trump.
MANCHIN: Do you believe this will rise to obstruction of justice?
COMEY: I don’t know. That — that’s Bob Mueller’s job to sort that out. [emphasis mine]
1 Like
This help?
4D chess?? I don’t think he could navigate a game of hungry hungry hippos
I wonder why Trump or Sessions seem unbotherd by Russian medling assuming no collusion\influence shouldnt they be botherd by it? Also why bring up establishing strengthing relationship with a country thats not exactly in the friend zone? Unless bribed or hidding something I don’t see a answer.
2 Likes
This is the point that simply has be shaking my head.
I just don’t get it.
Comey and the “MSM” are portrayed DAILY as more of an enemy to Trump than Putin…yet confirmed information seems to be coming out daily about how deeply the Russians were in attempting to (especially on the State level) and in some cases heavily influencing (via hacking and the flooding of information systems with Fake News) during the last election cycle.
Yet Trump; now Sessions; and many of Trumps people seem more concerned about discrediting and destroying other Americans than they seem to be even about asking simple questions about what the Russians did and continue to do.
Again; I just don’t get it…
3 Likes
No, he didn’t.[quote=“therajraj, post:1586, topic:226860”]
This is ridiculous
[/quote]
Let’s assume you’re right about Trump having no direct collusion himself with the Russians (which based on the information we have now, I believe). Several of his high ranking principals in his campaign and his administration did have a direct relationship with Russia, which is indisputably a hostile foreign power and was actively hostile during the time of the campaign and the high ranking principals’ relationship.
You agree that even if Trump didn’t directly collude with Russia, his failure to adequately vet, manage, control, and oversee Manafort, Flynn, etc. was dangerous for the country and reflects very poorly on Trump? You agree that he unnecessarily put the country at risk by trusting these individuals and equipping them with authority?
1 Like
No he quickly fired them.
And as for Flynn, I think his ties to Russia are mostly smoke and mirrors, but I do think his ties to Turkey are potentially troubling.
But since everything is media and narrative driven, much of what is important never gets the attention it deserves.
Quoting just so its on here twice. Even Republicans in Congress acknowledge we need to be careful with Russia.
1 Like
Well, no, he didn’t, but more to the point - shouldn’t Trump have known better? Why did he hire and rely on so many scurrilous individuals?
I know you’ll never agree that Trump did anything wrong ever, my questions and point are more rhetorical - it’s Trump’s responsibility to make sure people that won’t compromise national security while having access to a national campaign, presidential transition, and a presidency are not part of his administration. There’s not a more important job for an executive.
We’re not talking about bad employees who didn’t pan out - we’re talking about people who could compromise national security.
Letting these characters get that close to national security is a massive failure of leadership and is on Trump’s head, period, no matter where the investigation lands.
2 Likes
Jeff Sessions pushes back hard against the Russian allegations. It begins at :34. By now I’m sure many of you have watched this but for those who have not…enjoy.
Sessions full testimony:
I agree with this and have always been leery of Russia for many obvious reasons. But I think it has been politicized to the point where it has become comical. Surely you recall all the people (some on this site) who said Trump would be impeached over colluding with Russia. As we now know Trump is not personally under investigation for doing any such thing. We also now can be sure that Attorney General Sessions has nothing to do with Russian collusion. When this is all over with it will be found to have been a tempest in teapot.
Tbh I don’t think it’s possible to overly politicize a foreign hostile nuclear superpower meddling with a national election to appoint the most powerful man on the planet. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I agree with this. I’ve always thought that if Trump was going to be impeached Re: Russia it was going to be for his gross incompetence in the management of his staff. Even that was always a long shot though. [quote=“zeb1, post:1599, topic:226860”]
When this is all over with it will be found to have been a tempest in teapot.
[/quote]
When this is all over we’ll still be left with the knowledge that a foreign hostile nuclear superpower meddled with our largest national election to appoint the most powerful man on the planet, who went on to reveal another countries classified intel while pretending like Russia never did anything wrong. It sure FEELS like a tempest, but again, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
How exactly did they “meddle”?
This “meddling” by Russia is often repeated but all it has done is revealed who here is a useful idiot
Obama had a “red phone” call with Russian authorities over it - you don’t think the Russians meddled?