One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Trump uses popular Russian tactic against America: can you see where he is going now?
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Mar 4, 2020 02:15:15   #
SUZZY
 
Read the Mueller report - not what Mueller said. Never used the word "exonerated"!! Said "IF" he could clear Trump he would have said so (that means he COULD NOT clear Trump) Exonerated is what Trump said BEFORE and AFTER the MUELLER report. Facts & comprehension matter if you can read.

Reply
Mar 4, 2020 02:18:03   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
SUZZY wrote:
Read the Mueller report - not what Mueller said. Never used the word "exonerated"!! Said "IF" he could clear Trump he would have said so (that means he COULD NOT clear Trump) Exonerated is what Trump said BEFORE and AFTER the MUELLER report. Facts & comprehension matter if you can read.


Ok let me put it this way !!President Trump did NOT collude with Russia to win an e******n in 2016!!!

Reply
Mar 4, 2020 02:47:36   #
SUZZY
 
Mueller DID NOT clear him of collusion. Did you read the report? Did not charge him ( can't charge a sitting president) but Mueller did not clear him of collusion. Trump cleared himself LOL

Reply
 
 
Mar 5, 2020 00:06:48   #
EconomistDon
 
SUZZY wrote:
So you "heard" Mueller cleared Trump? FOX NEWS?? You need to "READ" the Mueller report. He said if he could clear Trump he would have said so. Then the ten counts of obstruction he reported. Trump is GUILTY and was not EXONERATED HELLO !!


Yea right, Trump obstructed a treasonous c**p attempt. Those knuckleheads should be behind bars. Treason is punishable by death in many countries.

Reply
Mar 5, 2020 18:23:10   #
JoyV
 
SUZZY wrote:
So you "heard" Mueller cleared Trump? FOX NEWS?? You need to "READ" the Mueller report. He said if he could clear Trump he would have said so. Then the ten counts of obstruction he reported. Trump is GUILTY and was not EXONERATED HELLO !!


He said nothing of the kind! I've included the report. But after the report was released, Mueller stated a sitting President couldn't be indicted, but never said there was anything indictable. The media took that statement to mean Trump was guilty and only his position as President saved him. Yet NO evidence was found AT ALL!

Whether Trump could be indicted or not was not Meullers job. His job was to investigate and find evidence and present it to the DOJ. Any evidence would be in his report. He found no evidence but would not say in plain language that Trump was exonerated.

Here is the report. Point out where any Russian collussion evidence is in it.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8yoah76t7nq04y/mueller-report.pdf?dl=0

Reply
Mar 5, 2020 18:39:47   #
JoyV
 
SUZZY wrote:
Read the Mueller report - not what Mueller said. Never used the word "exonerated"!! Said "IF" he could clear Trump he would have said so (that means he COULD NOT clear Trump) Exonerated is what Trump said BEFORE and AFTER the MUELLER report. Facts & comprehension matter if you can read.


Not true!!!! In the Mueller hearing after his report was released, he made this statement: "First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our e******n in sweeping and systematic fashion. Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its e******n i**********e activities."

Regarding part II of the report, which dealt with the issue of obstruction, this is what was said in the hearing. "NADLER:

So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?
MUELLER:

That is correct.
NADLER:

And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?
MUELLER:

No."

Here is his testimony. Read it for yourself before asserting what Mueller said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/full-transcript-robert-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216

Reply
Mar 5, 2020 19:50:48   #
SUZZY
 
JoyV wrote:
Not true!!!! In the Mueller hearing after his report was released, he made this statement: "First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our e******n in sweeping and systematic fashion. Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its e******n i**********e activities."

Regarding part II of the report, which dealt with the issue of obstruction, this is what was said in the hearing. "NADLER:

So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?
MUELLER:

That is correct.
NADLER:

And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?
MUELLER:

No."

Here is his testimony. Read it for yourself before asserting what Mueller said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/full-transcript-robert-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216
Not true!!!! In the Mueller hearing after his rep... (show quote)


Mueller Did not conclude Trump DID NOT obstruct = double negative =Trump DID obstruct! = guilty (reading comprehension 101)

Next: Did you actually totally exonerate the president? No (I did NOT totally exonerate the president = guilty)

Reply
 
 
Mar 6, 2020 00:49:50   #
EconomistDon
 
SUZZY wrote:
Mueller Did not conclude Trump DID NOT obstruct = double negative =Trump DID obstruct! = guilty (reading comprehension 101)

Next: Did you actually totally exonerate the president? No (I did NOT totally exonerate the president = guilty)


Oh Suzzy, your attempts at logic are futile.

Mueller Did not conclude Trump DID NOT obstruct = Mueller can't say honestly if he did or did not obstruct. There was NO CONCLUSION; he did not conclude!!!!! (reading comprehension 101)

Did you actually totally exonerate the president? No. Of course he didn't. It is not his job; it is the job of the courts. Mueller just conducted the investigation and provided his findings. Mueller has no authority to exonerate or convict the president! Mueller's report was so devoid of any substantive abuse by the Trump administration that court proceedings are unwarranted. Call that what you want; I call it exoneration.

Suzzy, I understand that you h**e Trump. You have a right to your opinions, right or WRONG. But your continued harping on Russia, Russia, Russia are becoming old and annoying.

Reply
Mar 6, 2020 19:54:46   #
JoyV
 
SUZZY wrote:
Mueller Did not conclude Trump DID NOT obstruct = double negative =Trump DID obstruct! = guilty (reading comprehension 101)

Next: Did you actually totally exonerate the president? No (I did NOT totally exonerate the president = guilty)


You better hope a judge and jury doesn't use that standard if you are ever taken to court. No one can 100% exonerate anyone! No evidence was found despite all the time, resources, and motivation to find guilt was applied. In most people's books, that is pretty well an exoneration. But not 100% exonerating someone most certainly is neither proof nor indication of guilt.

Reply
Mar 9, 2020 22:06:07   #
rumitoid
 
JoyV wrote:
He said nothing of the kind! I've included the report. But after the report was released, Mueller stated a sitting President couldn't be indicted, but never said there was anything indictable. The media took that statement to mean Trump was guilty and only his position as President saved him. Yet NO evidence was found AT ALL!

Whether Trump could be indicted or not was not Meullers job. His job was to investigate and find evidence and present it to the DOJ. Any evidence would be in his report. He found no evidence but would not say in plain language that Trump was exonerated.

Here is the report. Point out where any Russian collussion evidence is in it.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8yoah76t7nq04y/mueller-report.pdf?dl=0
He said nothing of the kind! I've included the rep... (show quote)


Too funny and wrong!

Reply
Mar 10, 2020 07:24:33   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
rumitoid wrote:
Too funny and wrong!


🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Reply
 
 
Mar 10, 2020 07:34:11   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
rumitoid wrote:
“F**e news” origins in Russia:
Perhaps oddly, Trump has offered us many lessons on Russia, from its language to its hacking techniques.
Trump’s biggest pet peeve is the media. The term “f**e news” is uttered almost daily by Trump in reference to any story that is not fawning.

Due to my experience with Russia and the Caucasus, Trump’s use of “f**e news” was nagging at me. And like the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle, the obvious source recently struck me and shone a spotlight on the entire Trump presidency.

“F**e news” is a simple t***slation of the Russian phrase pod-del’nie novosti, “counterfeit or f**e news” — literally “news (novosti) made (del’nie) underneath, in hiding (pod-).” The concept is a core one in Russian governance and has a long standing.

It has two basic senses. One is for domestic consumption, more or less propaganda, and serves to package any antagonistic event between Russia and another state as aggression against Russia, and any action on Russia’s part as defensive.

The second sense means to plant false and provocative reports in other countries’ media so as to sow social unrest, thereby weakening that nation. We now know that Russia has utilized social media both within the U.S. and across Europe to exacerbate inherent tensions.

In effect, Russia has jerked America around like a puppet on strings. Americans therefore, regardless of their political orientation, must acquire a sense of autonomy and integrity regarding the provocations that float across the internet from suspect news services.

What is most chilling, however, is that Trump himself promotes f**e news. He is simply and openly pursuing Russian ends by Russian means. Why?

In part, his outbursts hide problems within his own circle. His ongoing attack on the NFL started the same day that we learned his inner circle were using private e-mail servers.

The pattern also seems to suit his peevish temperament. His attack on mayor Yulin Cruz of San Juan, Puerto Rico, for example, seems to have been a matter of merely venting his biases and disdainful attitudes, a feature of his narcissism.

Still, those outbursts also fulfil Russia’s goal to weaken and divide the United States.
And if Trump does not find a way to sabotage the Robert Mueller investigation into his Russian ties, the special investigator will likely produce a wealth of evidence that threatens Trump’s interests and even his tenure in office.

In conclusion, Trump’s presidency has been a disaster for conservatives and liberals alike.
He has caused major damage both domestically and internationally, in the latter case to America’s stature and reputation.

We should be grateful, however, because he has at least shown us the remarkable power of a new form of conflict, for the West at least — that of a modern media assault on the institutions and social fabric of our democracies by a clever and determined adversary.

The U.S. military is already trying to contain Trump, with varying success. Congress must now show its true role as protector of the Republic and all it stands for and bring in articles of impeachment against Trump now before he can do yet more damage.

As Trump has taught us repeatedly, all of this is in plain sight.

John Colarusso, Professor of Languages and Linguistics and Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-some-v**ers-really-h**e-donald-trump-128117
“F**e news” origins in Russia: br Perhaps oddly, T... (show quote)


This article is unsupported BS... We witness the “ f**e news media hype” everyday... Sorry but what we see, read and hear supersedes any such attempt to cover the t***h of f**e news, Rumi... Its just that simple..

Reply
Mar 13, 2020 23:14:57   #
rumitoid
 
JoyV wrote:
He said nothing of the kind! I've included the report. But after the report was released, Mueller stated a sitting President couldn't be indicted, but never said there was anything indictable. The media took that statement to mean Trump was guilty and only his position as President saved him. Yet NO evidence was found AT ALL!

Whether Trump could be indicted or not was not Meullers job. His job was to investigate and find evidence and present it to the DOJ. Any evidence would be in his report. He found no evidence but would not say in plain language that Trump was exonerated.

Here is the report. Point out where any Russian collussion evidence is in it.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8yoah76t7nq04y/mueller-report.pdf?dl=0
He said nothing of the kind! I've included the rep... (show quote)


Unreal how conveniently blind some people can be. Truly staggering the blinders. Mueller enumerated three instances of Trump obstructing justice but did not believe it was within his authority to indict: he said that only the Congress could properly pursue it. Read the black parts.

Reply
Mar 13, 2020 23:34:19   #
EconomistDon
 
rumitoid wrote:
Unreal how conveniently blind some people can be. Truly staggering the blinders. Mueller enumerated three instances of Trump obstructing justice but did not believe it was within his authority to indict: he said that only the Congress could properly pursue it. Read the black parts.


Trump had every right to resist TREASON. I'm amazed at how calm and cooperative Trump was in the face of unjustified hatred. In many countries, treason is punishable by death.

Reply
Mar 19, 2020 17:39:21   #
JoyV
 
rumitoid wrote:
Unreal how conveniently blind some people can be. Truly staggering the blinders. Mueller enumerated three instances of Trump obstructing justice but did not believe it was within his authority to indict: he said that only the Congress could properly pursue it. Read the black parts.


Point them out in the report.

Mueller listed what were noted as indications Trump may have been motivated to obstruct. None were actually incidents of obstruction. These included things like speaking favorably about Flynn and being angry Sessions abdicated his duty and recused himself. It included firing Comey. These are NOT obstruction. None in his list were. The assumption is made on the left that because he said a sitting president couldn't be indicyed, this means he had proof of guilt and only the fact Trump was president prevented him from requesting he be indicted. I could say the Ambassador from England cannot be indicted for a crime in the US. This is no way means because he can't be indicted, he must be guilty.

But most importantly, the question was about collussion NOT obstruction.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.