woodguru

To me it's not that hard to see something that has hard documents or irrefutable facts that we see unfolding before our eyes and recognize realities whether we like them or not.

One thing is taken with a bit of skepticism, two that match up with a grain of salt, when three and four things that prove out start matching up with more they take on more and more credibility. Pretty soon you have a situation where the parts start painting a picture and things that don't fit start standing out as likely untrue.

When people reject something that is actually very clear, and more and more that actually has a high credibility, automatic rejections of new additional facts surfacing start sounding very weak. Often we are seeing conclusions drawn before we even have a chance to see the facts.

My point here, and the question is for the right...when facts are clear, you are looking at court documents or other hard evidence, evidence that would actually be impossible to make up...

Do you actually deep down know that the things being denied are actually real? Is there a part of you that knows your position is bogus, but that it is the position the group you are part of is taking so you stick to it?

I'm hoping this is the case, otherwise we are dealing with an ability to delude yourselves that is truly frightening. Wars could be fought over complete delusions.

tluna

more so for the far left.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Not when one can only see issues through partisan lens. What irrefutable facts to? are you referring What court documents are you referring to?

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Yes, you are spot on...a whole host of intelligence cronies have kidnapped the constitution under the pretext of a bogus Russian Delusion Collusion Solution.

When treasonous Mueller doesn't produce your hopes and dreams...will you accept the Conclusion?

Liberty Tree

Your opinion and wishes for certain things to be so are not facts.

woodguru

I could easily list a dozen things that the right completely denies that are 100% true, it would be an exercise in the right explaining how "that" truth is no big thing when it is.Most would result in a Hillary or Obama did way worse, which is not the point at all if we are talking about something the current president did.

son of witless

You keep speaking in hypothetical mode.

woodguru

But court filings that state things that have been proved to a judge are...as in co-conspirator one filings in Cohen indictments and guilty pleas.

Lies that Trump said in front of the country in media are factually lies when evidence comes out that proves them to be so, laws that state in black and white that lying to the public is a breach of trust that is impeachable...

that right there is enough, nothing more needs to be there to result in an impeachment.

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

"Wars could be fough over complete delusions".

Hitler had it all, business bots loved him, also there was Mussolini loved by the Catholic fringe as he donated the Vatican that gave them a full head of European hair on top, public underneath where for a Roman Catholic it really counts.

Hitler had it all so exactwhere did he go wroooong.

He wasn't deluded until the doodle bug morphed into the V rockets big expense little pay load surely that is the real nature of delusional behaviourism, or is delusion just an outsider standing on lunacy, it was with Hitler, his delusion was an idea that Winston Churchill was in anyway sane.

The war was fough to protect Winnie's financials which were underpinning
his appeal by motivating his BS.

Was Winston into Religion was he a believer in something other than his own welfare bought at the cost of a senseless war, is there delusion in that.

The British say no, a delusion is something that an be ignored, the war ignored the British Empire and it went away.

Is Trump fostering the same meaning of delusion, if he keeps going on backing a mug in Venezuela USA is ignoring it's Empire same as Britain did.

woodguru

Nothing hypothetical about paying attention to media coverage of documented facts such as indictments and plea bargain filings. Nothing hypothetical about hearing Trump lie about not having an affair with a porn star...then lying about there being no NDA...then lying about not knowing anything about the payment...

Clinton triggered an impeachment for lying about a blowjob, not getting one...

Trump was busted about lying, and given the string of lies there is an excellent chance that the unproven parts are lies too, which would be using campaign or foundation funds...campaign violations. Even if he didn't do that he still lied.

woodguru

You who sees through a partisan lens believes that everyone does too, that is not so.

I am referring to indictments and plea deals that have to make a case to the judge with facts, we are seeing big pieces of what Mueller has, many intentionally not redacted so we have an idea. Do you think if Mueller refers to Trump as co-conspirator one in an indictment that he doesn't have full on proof that backs up that statement? The only place you are hearing that Mueller has nothing is FOX and right wing media, the rest of mainstream media and people following are seeing dozens of facts that Mueller has been systematically revealing in court documents that are unimpeachable in their veracity.

The right believes, or at least wants to believe that because Cohen has lied, is a liar, that nothing he says about Trump is true. In fact, Mueller is only using things that have corroborative proof because of that. Do you think Mueller is going to press charges based solely on the word of Cohen? That is not how cases are built. Cohen just helped Mueller know where to look or corroborated if he didn't already know.

son of witless

I will defend Trump as your side defended Clinton. You must remember that Clinton's affair with Lewinski happened " on the job ", with a government intern. That is much worse than what Trump did as a private citizen. Please tell me you can tell the difference ?

The media is thoroughly corrupt, so why would I care as you do about what they say ? As far as Campaign violations, fine. If you can prove it, it will be a fine.

The Mueller indictments only have to do with process crimes. Mueller is there to find Trump-Russian Collusion. So far he has squat. If you or I were interviewed by Mueller without a lawyer present, we likely would be indicted. A prosecutor can indict and convict a ham sandwich. So spare me your holier than thou sermon.

The fix was in for Hillary and Co. If Comey had used the same rules that Mueller used on Flynn and the rest of the Trump Associates, Hillary and her friends would be in prison for the rest of this century.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Mulehead, Schitt, Rustystein, McCrappy, et al, none of them, I repeat, NONE of them have one shred of evidence of a trumpy/ruskie collusion. But their going to beat that dead horse of a witch hunt into the next century. So your facts and evidence flies into the toilet and you moonbats with TDS are drinking that water.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

buffalo Loc: Texas

His oliness' was fined $375,000 in 2012 for several campaign violations in 2008.

His oliness is what got Flynn's civil riights violated by listening in on his private phone conversations.

Long Before Flynn Obama “Flew straight into the Logan Act”
Posted on Monday, February 13, 2017 by Post Scripts
Posted by Tina

Those clever people over at TownHall, specifically Robert Charles, are taking to task those on the left who sought to smear General Flynn recently. Flynn was accused of speaking to the Russian ambassador by phone three weeks prior to Trumps inauguration, a violation so horrendous that he should immediately be dismissed from his duties, so they said. I’ll let you read the article to discover how obscure and meaningless the Logan Act is. The big reveal is that no one had a conniption fit when candidate Obama…well, lets quote Mr. Charles, he said it so well:

"In July 2008, independent of any policy conversations by staff, candidate Obama went to the Middle East and Europe and spoke extensively, one-on-one, about policy with leaders from Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, the West Bank, Israel, France, Germany and Britain. As a candidate, not as a president-elect.

Without thought of violating the Logan Act, Mr. Obama conducted substantive conversations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israel’s Prime Minister Elud Olmert, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his predecessor Tony Blair and opposition leader David Cameron. In short, in an effort to transparently promote his presidential candidacy, with all manner of topics, candidate Obama flew straight into the Logan Act."

Mr. Charles informs that in 200 years no one has been charged with violating the Logan Act. In 2008 these same news outlets were following Obama around like puppies and praising his every word and deed. The man was even awarded the Nobel Prize for peace without having done anything more than travel the world talking to leaders in private conversations…most of it while GWB was still president.