A Futile and Stupid Gesture: The History of the First Trump Presidency & Q-Anon

What is 100% proven? That now Paul Manafort, who resigned from the campaign, is now the ring leader of collusion with the Russians to turn the election?

It is rather common to pay people to use their influence. They're called lobbyists.

As far as I am aware, Mr Manafort did nothing illegal in these dealings and don't have any connection to Trump. They were like a decade ago. Also, he has agreed to talk to the committee.

That Paul Manafort worked as a representative for the Russian government without declaring it, and that he took bribes in Ukraine. He is a wanted person in Ukraine. Just because it happened 8 years ago doesn't mean it isn't bad. I can't believe you don't find it the slightest bit suspicious that Trump surrounds himself which such shady people?

From the BBC (there are hundreds of other sources reporting this as well):

"Mr Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016, and helped to secure the president's nomination for the race. He was promoted to campaign chairperson in June.

But he was forced out in August 2016, when reports emerged that the Ukrainian government had uncovered ledgers pledging more than $12m (£9.2m) in undisclosed cash payments for his work with Mr Yanukovych."

"Further allegations have been made in Ukraine about secret funds said to have been paid to Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko said he had evidence that Mr Manafort had tried to hide a payment of $750,000 (£600,800) from a pro-Russian party in 2009."
 
Last edited:
Using the Russian playbook, I predict you will now either mention something else that's bad, try to change the subject, attack the source or just ignore it.
 
I see, interesting. Not sure that is why he left the campaign, could be. But his behavior a decade ago has no connection whatsoever to Trump. And if he was forced out, doesn't it demonstrate the opposite to collusion?

Someone in Ukraine claims to have evidence. They may very well have. Nobody has seen it. Claims of evidence are not evidence, and in no way make the man guilty.

The only thing proven here is that he did work for a foreign government.
 
I see, interesting. Not sure that is why he left the campaign, could be. But his behavior a decade ago has no connection whatsoever to Trump. And if he was forced out, doesn't it demonstrate the opposite to collusion?

Someone in Ukraine claims to have evidence. They may very well have. Nobody has seen it. Claims of evidence are not evidence, and in no way make the man guilty.

The only thing proven here is that he did work for a foreign government.

It's suspicious enough that it warrants a full blown and independent investigation.

Anyways, in a sense it's a distraction from the more important issues that plague Trump's administration, but it shouldn't be ignored either.
 
A 10 year old piece of consulting doesn't rise to that level. There is 0 evidence of collusion, and until there is evidence, this needs to stop and attention to who committed felonies by leaking and unmasking names.
 
As a reminder, an example of a good deal for (billionaire) Americans that Trump tried to push through:

"He didn’t. Instead, he and his allies crafted a poorly constructed and radical bill that would sharply cut support to low-income Americans and those with serious health conditions, while enacting big tax cuts for the wealthy. The payout to the top 400 families alone was estimated to exceed total ACA subsidies in 20 states and the District of Columbia. All of this was wildly out of step with American voters—only 17 percent of whom supported this bill.

Every liberal and conservative think tank hated AHCA, albeit for different reasons. Medical provider groups hated it. The AARP hated it—even before the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 64-year-olds with $26,500 annual incomes would see their average net individual insurance premiums go from $1,700 to a $14,600. Republicans tried to patch this up. Too late. This 760 percent premium increase was politically immolating."


http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...d-because-his-bill-was-a-dumpster-fire-214952
 
The repeal and replace was planned to go in 3 parts. That hack is misleading the reader of the article.

Indeed these cherry picked "facts" may live in a vacuum, but in reality, part 2 and 3 were intended to finish correcting the ship.

Now granted, there is no guarantee part 2 and 3 were going to happen, but that was the intention.
 
The repeal and replace was planned to go in 3 parts. That hack is misleading the reader of the article.

Indeed these cherry picked "facts" may live in a vacuum, but in reality, part 2 and 3 were intended to finish correcting the ship.

Now granted, there is no guarantee part 2 and 3 were going to happen, but that was the intention.

So premiums for poor, old and sick people wouldn't go up, and the tax cuts for rich Americans would be undone again with part 2 and 3? Please tell me more.
 
Snap!

Podesta's connection to Kremlin cash. Joule Energy. While an advisor to Hillary Clinton and Obama. Money in the bank directly tied to Putin. Failed to disclose.

Won't be reported on CNN.

Crush that like button red pills.

 
Last edited:
I just want to know what Trump is going to do about all the robots taking our jobs. I posted earlier about machine learning enabling AI to more accurately diagnose some illnesses than the average GP, and ole deepstate doghouse said, I shit you not, that he would welcome robot overlords.
 
So Trump and the republicans bash the media for not revealing their sources, but Nunes does not want to reveal his source either (and Trump/Ryan stand by that decision). Hypocrisy much?
 
So Trump and the republicans bash the media for not revealing their sources, but Nunes does not want to reveal his source either (and Trump/Ryan stand by that decision). Hypocrisy much?

Are you serious? This barely warrants a response.

Nunes has a security clearance. I'll let Spicer take this one.

 
There is a difference between a security clearance and being entitled to know a source.

I don't believe Nunes is obliged, and it also doesn't seem unusual to want to protect a source. The documents speak for themselves regardless of who LEGALLY provided them. Perhaps the source disclosed under the condition of anonymity, or used a surrogate, or 100 other things.

Stop distracting from the actual information. I believe that information is available to the rest of the committee.
 
There is a difference between a security clearance and being entitled to know a source.

I don't believe Nunes is obliged, and it also doesn't seem unusual to want to protect a source. The documents speak for themselves regardless of who LEGALLY provided them. Perhaps the source disclosed under the condition of anonymity, or used a surrogate, or 100 other things.

Stop distracting from the actual information. I believe that information is available to the rest of the committee.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about. We only deal in facts here, not "I believe".
 
There is a difference between a security clearance and being entitled to know a source.

I don't believe Nunes is obliged, and it also doesn't seem unusual to want to protect a source. The documents speak for themselves regardless of who LEGALLY provided them. Perhaps the source disclosed under the condition of anonymity, or used a surrogate, or 100 other things.

Stop distracting from the actual information. I believe that information is available to the rest of the committee.

1. He hasn't shown the documents to anyone, nor is he saying where he got them from or where to find them, so they can't exactly speak for themselves.
2. The White House says they didn't know he was in the White House. Do you really believe they don't keep track of who enters or exits the building?
3. You believe an awful lot.
 
Ninja editing posts? Come on. Original post:

"In short, you don't know what you're talking about."

I said I believe, which indicates I am not 100% certain, which is ok.

If not shared yet, it's absurd to believe this information will remain hidden to the committee. There is likely a very reasonable explanation, which many on the left are not open to hearing. And I am sure it's not been shared with anyone in the committee, not just the opposition party.

We're dealing with evidence here, not fake dossiers for Adam Schiff to quote from. The chairman of the committee is dealing with real crime of unmasking and leaking, so if I was in his position I'd be very careful with it.
 
Ninja editing posts? Come on. Original post:

"In short, you don't know what you're talking about."

I said I believe, which indicates I am not 100% certain, which is ok.

If not shared yet, it's absurd to believe this information will remain hidden to the committee. There is likely a very reasonable explanation, which many on the left are not open to hearing. And I am sure it's not been shared with anyone in the committee, not just the opposition party.

We're dealing with evidence here, not fake dossiers for Adam Schiff to quote from. The chairman of the committee is dealing with real crime of unmasking and leaking, so if I was in his position I'd be very careful with it.

No ninja edit. Look above, the original post is still there. But I guess you must've missed that, just like you miss most other things?
 
You added to the post after the fact and it's not worth derailing over.

How about responding to the substance of my post? Seems like that was missed. Likely because there is no reasonable person that believe the committee chairman intends to hide what he's learned.
 
I just want to know what Trump is going to do about all the robots taking our jobs. I posted earlier about machine learning enabling AI to more accurately diagnose some illnesses than the average GP, and ole deepstate doghouse said, I shit you not, that he would welcome robot overlords.

Terminator-2-1200x873.jpg
 
You added to the post after the fact and it's not worth derailing over.

How about responding to the substance of my post? Seems like that was missed. Likely because there is no reasonable person that believe the committee chairman intends to hide what he's learned.

Well, he hasn't shared his info yet with the rest of the IC. What's stopping him? How do you know he intends to share it? Why did the White House lie about not knowing he was in their house?
 
Timely, now that our resident nut OfficePants has returned.

President Trump has successfully created an alternate reality


By Aaron Blake March 29 at 8:24 AM

President Trump speaks between Vice President Pence, left, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (Carlos Barria/Reuters)
Americans live in two realities when it comes to the Russia investigation. On one side is the intelligence community, and on the other is a Republican Party that very much believes President Trump's alternative facts.

Including, apparently, that Trump's offices were wiretapped during the 2016 presidential campaign.

A new CBS poll shows that three in four Republicans believe it's at least “somewhat likely” that Trump's offices were wiretapped or under some kind of surveillance during the race. Although 35 percent think it's “very likely,” 39 percent say it's “somewhat likely.” About half (49 percent) of independents also say it's at least “somewhat likely.”

Trump contended in tweets a few weeks ago that Trump Tower had been wiretapped and that none other than President Barack Obama was behind it. But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who is under fire for being too friendly with the White House, has said that assertion is incorrect.

Rep. Devin Nunes's credibility questioned as Russia investigation goes on
Play Video2:44
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is under fire from Democrats who say the House intelligence committee chair should recuse himself from the committee's investigation into Russia, because he's too close to President Trump. Can Nunes retain his credibility as the investigation plays out? (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
Nunes has said that “there was no wiretapping of Trump Tower. That did not happen.” He has also said, “Clearly, the president was wrong.”

Nunes then claimed last week that there is evidence that Trump and his associates' communications were swept up in what is known as “incidental collection.” As I've noted, though, that doesn't mean Trump was targeted by the surveillance. Nonetheless, this led Trump to assert partial vindication.

For the record, here's the question CBS asked: “How likely do you think it is that Donald Trump’s offices were wiretapped, or under government surveillance during the 2016 presidential campaign?” Strictly speaking, even Nunes has acknowledged that Trump's offices were not under surveillance.

So what we have here is another situation in which Trump makes an evidence-free claim, the White House moves the goal posts to suggest that he was saying something less severe than he actually was, and eventually enough reasonable doubt emerges for partisans to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

Which is par for the course. The Trump-Russia saga already has proven that Republicans are very much willing to take Trump's word for it rather than believe the intelligence community — and, by extension, the media.

Polls have long shown that Republicans don't even believe the intelligence community's evaluation that Russia interfered in the presidential election. And among the few who think it did, many don't think it tried to help Trump — another consensus conclusion of the intelligence community.
 
Tucker takes on weasel voice Democrat guy who has that thumb pointy thing that Bill Clinton had talking about the magical "independent commission" (which are never independent, or quick)




Then takes on congressman - wait, another independent commission.... and then mentions the fake dossier Schiff quoted. And talking point recusal blather.

 
I perused around breitbart and its full of comments that remind me of sarto. Here is one of them

IMG_0919.webp
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom