Doc Brown Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 I would believe he knew what he was doing when he tweets if he weren't so impulsive. Sometimes his trolling is intentional, other times it's spur of the moment, raw reaction to what he's watching on the news at the time. It can be argued that his "tapes" tweet about Comey is what sent into motion a special prosecutor being assigned. I highly doubt there was any collusion between Russia and his campaign, but there's a much better chance of Mueller finding out some shady business transactions between Trump and Russia oligarchs. If Trump goes down because of his business dealings with Russia (nothing to do with collusion) he has nobody to blame but himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 It can be argued that his "tapes" tweet about Comey is what sent into motion a special prosecutor being assigned. I highly doubt there was any collusion between Russia and his campaign, but there's a much better chance of Mueller finding out some shady business transactions between Trump and Russia oligarchs. If Trump goes down because of his business dealings with Russia (nothing to do with collusion) he has nobody to blame but himself. There is not much here that I would disagree with. I also highly doubt that there was any Russian collusion but with these sort of investigations, Mueller is expected to come up with something and I'm sure as he digs and expands his probe there will be something that he finds. Odds are if the FBI were to investigate just about anyone this much that they'd find something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 It can be argued that his "tapes" tweet about Comey is what sent into motion a special prosecutor being assigned. I highly doubt there was any collusion between Russia and his campaign, but there's a much better chance of Mueller finding out some shady business transactions between Trump and Russia oligarchs. If Trump goes down because of his business dealings with Russia (nothing to do with collusion) he has nobody to blame but himself. Well, there's recent precedent for a special prosecutor who started at A only to end up a Z. What started as an investigation into the Whitewater land deal morphed into the Vince Foster death, firing of travel agents, Paula Jones and sexual abuse, Linda Tripp wearing a wire to record sordid details of hummers in the Oval Office and Clinton lying to Congress about what was on those tapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Odds are if the FBI were to investigate just about anyone this much that they'd find something. Isn't it safe to assume that's the whole idea behind all the investigations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 What's truly impressive is that, whereas it took the Clintons the better part of a quarter-century to build up such a body of contradictory work, Trump's managed the same in about fifteen months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted. Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see hereand here]. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/ Worth the read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 COLLUSION: Democrats intentionally used disinformation from Russia to attack Trump, campaign aides. NOTHING TO HIDE: Co-founder of firm behind Trump-Russia dossier to plead the Fifth...(Let's not forget that the genius posters here on the Left have taught us that there is no reason to take the 5th, or lawyer up, or discuss pardons..............if you are innocent...........right ?) CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Meet the lawyers who gave $$ to Hillary, now investigating team Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Answer me this bman.....would it be collusion if DT asked the russians to hack into HC emails and they did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Isn't it safe to assume that's the whole idea behind all the investigations? Yep. I've long argued it's just a mean to hamstring Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Yep. I've long argued it's just a mean to hamstring Trump. Answer me this j6p....would it be collusion if DT asked the Russians to hack into HC emails and they did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Answer me this j6p....would it be collusion if DT asked the Russians to hack into HC emails and they did? Nope. In your hypothetical, it's no different than asking domestic political operatives to spy on a candidate....a'la Obama. But, again, there's no proof that actually happened. And if you're going to use a speech to say it did, well to that I say you're grasping for straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 While Trump tantrum tweets, the Russians continue to take advantage of his acquiescence at our expense. The Taliban have received improved weaponry in Afghanistan that appears to have been supplied by the Russian government, according to exclusive videos obtained by CNN, adding weight to accusations by Afghan and American officials that Moscow is arming their one-time foe in the war-torn country. US generals first suggested they were concerned the Russian government was seeking to arm the Afghan insurgents back in April, but images from the battlefield here corroborating these claims have been hard to come by. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/taliban-weapons-afghanistan/index.html Asked in April whether he would refute the reports Russia was arming the Taliban, the US commander here, Gen. John Nicholson, said: "Oh, no I'm not refuting that... Arming belligerents or legitimizing belligerents who perpetuate attacks ... is not the best way forward". Gen. Joseph Votel, chief of US Central Command, told a congressional committee in March he believed the Russians were seeking influence in Afghanistan "I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to (the Taliban) in terms of weapons or other things that may be there," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 While Trump tantrum tweets, the Russians continue to take advantage of his acquiescence at our expense. The Taliban have received improved weaponry in Afghanistan that appears to have been supplied by the Russian government, according to exclusive videos obtained by CNN, adding weight to accusations by Afghan and American officials that Moscow is arming their one-time foe in the war-torn country. US generals first suggested they were concerned the Russian government was seeking to arm the Afghan insurgents back in April, but images from the battlefield here corroborating these claims have been hard to come by. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/taliban-weapons-afghanistan/index.html Asked in April whether he would refute the reports Russia was arming the Taliban, the US commander here, Gen. John Nicholson, said: "Oh, no I'm not refuting that... Arming belligerents or legitimizing belligerents who perpetuate attacks ... is not the best way forward". Gen. Joseph Votel, chief of US Central Command, told a congressional committee in March he believed the Russians were seeking influence in Afghanistan "I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to (the Taliban) in terms of weapons or other things that may be there," he said. If the russians are arming the Taliban, they're fools. The Taliban has ZERO love for Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 While Trump tantrum tweets, the Russians continue to take advantage of his acquiescence at our expense. The Taliban have received improved weaponry in Afghanistan that appears to have been supplied by the Russian government, according to exclusive videos obtained by CNN, adding weight to accusations by Afghan and American officials that Moscow is arming their one-time foe in the war-torn country. US generals first suggested they were concerned the Russian government was seeking to arm the Afghan insurgents back in April, but images from the battlefield here corroborating these claims have been hard to come by. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/taliban-weapons-afghanistan/index.html Asked in April whether he would refute the reports Russia was arming the Taliban, the US commander here, Gen. John Nicholson, said: "Oh, no I'm not refuting that... Arming belligerents or legitimizing belligerents who perpetuate attacks ... is not the best way forward". Gen. Joseph Votel, chief of US Central Command, told a congressional committee in March he believed the Russians were seeking influence in Afghanistan "I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to (the Taliban) in terms your of weapons or other things that may be there," he said. The irony here is off the charts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Trump is going to fire Sessions it looks like. Attacked not him on twitter again. Recessed appointment of some stoog who does not need senate confirmation and then that person could fire Muelller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Trump is going to fire Sessions it looks like. Attacked not him on twitter again. Recessed appointment of some stoog who does not need senate confirmation and then that person could fire Muelller. Sounds like something you would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Sounds like something you would say. Do you even read his Twitter feed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 USA TODAY COLUMN: Forget Russia. I’d fire Jeff Sessions over civil forfeiture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Get rid of sessions thank god Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts