Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[tim_m]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/trump-biden-call-xi-secure-server/index.html?utm_source=fbCNN&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-10-04T04%3A30%3A09

Now he's discussed Biden and Warren with Xi.

[sandman]

Misrepresenting a transcript in an official inquiry isn't a minute detail.  I guess white lies are OK in a court of law, for example?

Schiff is not fine. Guy has an agenda, just needs to figure out how to achieve it. This is not how investigations should work.

Trump is no saint, I think we know that.  I have taken issue with his style and actions at times. But the question is did he violate the constitution or commit a crime? So far no evidence of that. And one phone call wont remove him from office.  If you dont like him or hate him with an unhealthy rage, we have this thing called an election in November of 2020.

guy totally has an agenda. somehow I think Soros is involved. and many people and events are connected. Ukraine, Soros, Schiff, 2016, etc. etc. Barr's trip to Italy may turn out to be critical.

We have no information to say without a doubt that Trump committed a crime or violated the constitution. no one is making that clear argument, or we would all know EXACTLY what crime was committed.

AOC provide as much when she was pushed on it and said they want to impeach because of his policies. this is what it has always been about. they have been calling for impeachment from day 1.  

MSNBC is excusing Schiff for his lies this morning and trying to cover for him. Sam Stein said:

Schiff "clearly wasn't being forthright in that interview with us a couple weeks ago and he should have been."   but that Schiff "expressed regret".

and that's our media!! but hey, liberals don't question this and allow people like Schiff to get away with it (cause "orange man bad") so why should Schiff or MSNBC give a fuck.

The memo is the evidence we have so far, the inquiry is an investigation to determine if it rises to impeachable level and to find more evidence if it exists. You do understand what an Impeachment inquiry is i assume.

to your credit, you have consistently said let's move forward with the inquiry and see what they find.

but most liberals have been calling for impeachment. there was serious calls for impeachment earlier this year, some said let's just do it in 2020 (for no other reason than to tamper with the election), and many have been calling for impeachment in the last week or so. i'm talking elected officials and many liberal voters.

I think based on your comments, you would agree that calling for impeachment is simple-minded partisanship at this point.

[sandman]

Trump says he should start his own news network, i guess Fox news isn't far enough up his ass for his liking.

have you watched Fox News lately? many of their top people are anti-trump and push bullshit stories about him daily. they are really slick and make points about the current news to make Trump look bad. Brett Baier, Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Ed Henry, Napolitano (frequent guest), and others. it's been like this for a few years now. none of them wanted Trump. their prime time lineup is all pro-trump, but if you are a Trump fan, Fox News is unwatchable throughout the daytime.

nighttime personalities are not "news" reporters. they are talk show hosts. and you know what you are getting with each. but the other hosts throughout the day report actual news, and they report it in a way that is negative to trump. that is more powerful in my opinion. 

[tim_m]

Misrepresenting a transcript in an official inquiry isn't a minute detail.  I guess white lies are OK in a court of law, for example?

Schiff is not fine. Guy has an agenda, just needs to figure out how to achieve it. This is not how investigations should work.

Trump is no saint, I think we know that.  I have taken issue with his style and actions at times. But the question is did he violate the constitution or commit a crime? So far no evidence of that. And one phone call wont remove him from office.  If you dont like him or hate him with an unhealthy rage, we have this thing called an election in November of 2020.

guy totally has an agenda. somehow I think Soros is involved. and many people and events are connected. Ukraine, Soros, Schiff, 2016, etc. etc. Barr's trip to Italy may turn out to be critical.

We have no information to say without a doubt that Trump committed a crime or violated the constitution. no one is making that clear argument, or we would all know EXACTLY what crime was committed.

AOC provide as much when she was pushed on it and said they want to impeach because of his policies. this is what it has always been about. they have been calling for impeachment from day 1.  

MSNBC is excusing Schiff for his lies this morning and trying to cover for him. Sam Stein said:

Schiff "clearly wasn't being forthright in that interview with us a couple weeks ago and he should have been."   but that Schiff "expressed regret".

and that's our media!! but hey, liberals don't question this and allow people like Schiff to get away with it (cause "orange man bad") so why should Schiff or MSNBC give a fuck.

The memo is the evidence we have so far, the inquiry is an investigation to determine if it rises to impeachable level and to find more evidence if it exists. You do understand what an Impeachment inquiry is i assume.

to your credit, you have consistently said let's move forward with the inquiry and see what they find.

but most liberals have been calling for impeachment. there was serious calls for impeachment earlier this year, some said let's just do it in 2020 (for no other reason than to tamper with the election), and many have been calling for impeachment in the last week or so. i'm talking elected officials and many liberal voters.

I think based on your comments, you would agree that calling for impeachment is simple-minded partisanship at this point.

Yes going right to impeachment without a full investigation would be unwise. Let's see where all this leads. The call with Zelensky and the texts that Volker provided yesterday are a good star. At this point i think opening a official inquiry should be done by vote on the Intel committee so that subpoenas and such can be issued. This isn't something that should be rushed. For the record, I'd also like to state as much as i dislike Trump and want him out of office i an not rooting for him to be removed via unprecedent. It should not be something to be celebrated by anyone no matter who the impeached may be. It should be a sad day. It means the impeached person violates the oath of office to uphold the defend the Constitution. Nobody should be happy about that. Personally based on what we have so far i think Trump is guilty, but i don't think the case is strong though yet to get a conviction in the Senate. I think not evidence is needed to convince many of them is the right thing to do versus Sabine their own ass. If these poll numbers in Republican districts continue to rise i believe we can see a dramatic shift in the Senate. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464183-house-gop-battleground-poll-finds-opponents-narrowly-outnumber-impeachment%3famp

[tim_m]

Trump says he should start his own news network, i guess Fox news isn't far enough up his ass for his liking.

have you watched Fox News lately? many of their top people are anti-trump and push bullshit stories about him daily. they are really slick and make points about the current news to make Trump look bad. Brett Baier, Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Ed Henry, Napolitano (frequent guest), and others. it's been like this for a few years now. none of them wanted Trump. their prime time lineup is all pro-trump, but if you are a Trump fan, Fox News is unwatchable throughout the daytime.

nighttime personalities are not "news" reporters. they are talk show hosts. and you know what you are getting with each. but the other hosts throughout the day report actual news, and they report it in a way that is negative to trump. that is more powerful in my opinion. 

Honestly, i don't watch any cable news regularly. Once in awhile if there's something breaking I'll turn in CNN. Otherwise i avoid cable news. Unless it's election night then u watch CNN just so i can get results from around the country with state races.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Trump says he should start his own news network, i guess Fox news isn't far enough up his ass for his liking.

have you watched Fox News lately? many of their top people are anti-trump and push bullshit stories about him daily. they are really slick and make points about the current news to make Trump look bad. Brett Baier, Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Ed Henry, Napolitano (frequent guest), and others. it's been like this for a few years now. none of them wanted Trump. their prime time lineup is all pro-trump, but if you are a Trump fan, Fox News is unwatchable throughout the daytime.

nighttime personalities are not "news" reporters. they are talk show hosts. and you know what you are getting with each. but the other hosts throughout the day report actual news, and they report it in a way that is negative to trump. that is more powerful in my opinion. 

Honestly, i don't watch any cable news regularly. Once in awhile if there's something breaking I'll turn in CNN. Otherwise i avoid cable news. Unless it's election night then u watch CNN just so i can get results from around the country with state races.

CNN is no longer a middle of the road cable news network, its all anti Trump bias 24/7. Hardly objective. 

Its Fox news of the left, actually they are worse in their bias. At least in the middle of the day Fox is pretty objective. ( ex. Shepard Smith who is fairly straight news, but clearly not a Trump fan)

[tim_m]

Trump says he should start his own news network, i guess Fox news isn't far enough up his ass for his liking.

have you watched Fox News lately? many of their top people are anti-trump and push bullshit stories about him daily. they are really slick and make points about the current news to make Trump look bad. Brett Baier, Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Ed Henry, Napolitano (frequent guest), and others. it's been like this for a few years now. none of them wanted Trump. their prime time lineup is all pro-trump, but if you are a Trump fan, Fox News is unwatchable throughout the daytime.

nighttime personalities are not "news" reporters. they are talk show hosts. and you know what you are getting with each. but the other hosts throughout the day report actual news, and they report it in a way that is negative to trump. that is more powerful in my opinion. 

Honestly, i don't watch any cable news regularly. Once in awhile if there's something breaking I'll turn in CNN. Otherwise i avoid cable news. Unless it's election night then u watch CNN just so i can get results from around the country with state races.

CNN is no longer a middle of the road cable news network, its all anti Trump bias 24/7. Hardly objective. 

Its Fox news of the left, actually they are worse in their bias. At least in the middle of the day Fox is pretty objective. ( ex. Shepard Smith who is fairly straight news, but clearly not a Trump fan)

They all suck in their own way whether that be CNN, Fox news, msnbc, OAN the blaze Bloomberg, BBC etc.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Trump says he should start his own news network, i guess Fox news isn't far enough up his ass for his liking.

have you watched Fox News lately? many of their top people are anti-trump and push bullshit stories about him daily. they are really slick and make points about the current news to make Trump look bad. Brett Baier, Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Ed Henry, Napolitano (frequent guest), and others. it's been like this for a few years now. none of them wanted Trump. their prime time lineup is all pro-trump, but if you are a Trump fan, Fox News is unwatchable throughout the daytime.

nighttime personalities are not "news" reporters. they are talk show hosts. and you know what you are getting with each. but the other hosts throughout the day report actual news, and they report it in a way that is negative to trump. that is more powerful in my opinion. 

Honestly, i don't watch any cable news regularly. Once in awhile if there's something breaking I'll turn in CNN. Otherwise i avoid cable news. Unless it's election night then u watch CNN just so i can get results from around the country with state races.

CNN is no longer a middle of the road cable news network, its all anti Trump bias 24/7. Hardly objective. 

Its Fox news of the left, actually they are worse in their bias. At least in the middle of the day Fox is pretty objective. ( ex. Shepard Smith who is fairly straight news, but clearly not a Trump fan)

They all suck in their own way whether that be CNN, Fox news, msnbc, OAN the blaze Bloomberg, BBC etc.

Agreed. Id like to see a cable news network along the lines of what CNN used to be years ago. Middle of the road straight news and not all politics. Opinion would be ok here and there but give equal time to each side and label it an editorial instead of passing it off as news. . I guess I can dream.....

[tim_m]

Trump says he should start his own news network, i guess Fox news isn't far enough up his ass for his liking.

have you watched Fox News lately? many of their top people are anti-trump and push bullshit stories about him daily. they are really slick and make points about the current news to make Trump look bad. Brett Baier, Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Ed Henry, Napolitano (frequent guest), and others. it's been like this for a few years now. none of them wanted Trump. their prime time lineup is all pro-trump, but if you are a Trump fan, Fox News is unwatchable throughout the daytime.

nighttime personalities are not "news" reporters. they are talk show hosts. and you know what you are getting with each. but the other hosts throughout the day report actual news, and they report it in a way that is negative to trump. that is more powerful in my opinion. 

Honestly, i don't watch any cable news regularly. Once in awhile if there's something breaking I'll turn in CNN. Otherwise i avoid cable news. Unless it's election night then u watch CNN just so i can get results from around the country with state races.

CNN is no longer a middle of the road cable news network, its all anti Trump bias 24/7. Hardly objective. 

Its Fox news of the left, actually they are worse in their bias. At least in the middle of the day Fox is pretty objective. ( ex. Shepard Smith who is fairly straight news, but clearly not a Trump fan)

They all suck in their own way whether that be CNN, Fox news, msnbc, OAN the blaze Bloomberg, BBC etc.

Agreed. Id like to see a cable news network along the lines of what CNN used to be years ago. Middle of the road straight news and not all politics. Opinion would be ok here and there but give equal time to each side and label it an editorial instead of passing it off as news. . I guess I can dream.....

Exactly why i stick to news publications, if we can call it that anymore being it's mostly online. I don't think most people get a newspaper anymore.

[tim_m]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/464480-second-intel-official-considering-filing-complaint-over-trump-report

[tim_m]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

[Dr. Blutarsky]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/464374-washington-post-fact-checker-gives-schiff-four-pinocchios-for-whistleblower

Washington Post fact-checker gives Schiff four Pinocchios for whistleblower remark

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column on Friday gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) four Pinocchios for claiming last month that his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower" who raised concerns about President Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
 
The New York Times first reported on Wednesday that the whistleblower had consulted with Schiff's committee before filing the complaint.
 
Schiff said in a Sept. 17 interview with the Daily Beast's Sam Stein on MSNBC that "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower."
 
“Have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? What protections could you provide to the whistleblower?” Stein, an MSNBC contributor, asked on "Morning Joe."
 
“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to," Schiff responded. "But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.”
 
The Post said Schiff's response was "flat-out false."
 
"Schiff on 'Morning Joe' clearly made a statement that was false," the fact-checker said. "He now says he’s was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by telling reporters a few days later that if not for the [inspector general's] office, the committee would not have known about the complaint. That again suggested there had been no prior communication."
 
"The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity," the fact-checker added. "Schiff earns Four Pinocchios."
 
The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with four being reserved for what the column considers the most egregious statements.
 
A House Intelligence Committee spokesperson told the Post that Schiff's answer to Stein "should have been more carefully phrased."
 
“Regarding Chairman Schiff’s comments on ‘Morning Joe,’ in the context, he intended to answer the question of whether the Committee had heard testimony from the whistleblower, which they had not,” the spokesperson said. “As he said in his answer, the whistleblower was then awaiting instructions from the Acting [Director of National Intelligence] as to how the whistleblower could contact the Committee. Nonetheless he acknowledges that his statement should have been more carefully phrased to make that distinction clear.”

[tim_m]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/464374-washington-post-fact-checker-gives-schiff-four-pinocchios-for-whistleblower

Washington Post fact-checker gives Schiff four Pinocchios for whistleblower remark

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column on Friday gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) four Pinocchios for claiming last month that his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower" who raised concerns about President Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
 
The New York Times first reported on Wednesday that the whistleblower had consulted with Schiff's committee before filing the complaint.
 
Schiff said in a Sept. 17 interview with the Daily Beast's Sam Stein on MSNBC that "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower."
 
“Have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? What protections could you provide to the whistleblower?” Stein, an MSNBC contributor, asked on "Morning Joe."
 
“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to," Schiff responded. "But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.”
 
The Post said Schiff's response was "flat-out false."
 
"Schiff on 'Morning Joe' clearly made a statement that was false," the fact-checker said. "He now says he’s was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by telling reporters a few days later that if not for the [inspector general's] office, the committee would not have known about the complaint. That again suggested there had been no prior communication."
 
"The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity," the fact-checker added. "Schiff earns Four Pinocchios."
 
The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with four being reserved for what the column considers the most egregious statements.
 
A House Intelligence Committee spokesperson told the Post that Schiff's answer to Stein "should have been more carefully phrased."
 
“Regarding Chairman Schiff’s comments on ‘Morning Joe,’ in the context, he intended to answer the question of whether the Committee had heard testimony from the whistleblower, which they had not,” the spokesperson said. “As he said in his answer, the whistleblower was then awaiting instructions from the Acting [Director of National Intelligence] as to how the whistleblower could contact the Committee. Nonetheless he acknowledges that his statement should have been more carefully phrased to make that distinction clear.”

I've read this multiple times and it is a misspoke. Nowhere does it say even in the article any rep on the committee directly spoke to the whistleblower.

[tim_m]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396&cid=social_fb_abcn


And the downward spiral continues.

[sandman]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396&cid=social_fb_abcn


And the downward spiral continues.

I’m predicting a 3rd by Thursday.

How many accusers did we get with Kavanaugh? I forget already.

We do have a transcript of the call, so hell, you should contact the left wing law firm that is orchestrating all of this and name yourself as a whistleblower.

[sandman]

We’ve know for a week or so that Adam Schiff sent a House Intel staffer to Ukraine during Aug 24-31

We now know that was 12 days after receiving the whistleblower complaint.

The trip was paid for by the Atlantic Council.  And who was a donor of the Atlantic Council?

BURISMA

Its all connected. More connections will come to light soon for anyone that wants to pay attention.

[tim_m]

We’ve know for a week or so that Adam Schiff sent a House Intel staffer to Ukraine during Aug 24-31

We now know that was 12 days after receiving the whistleblower complaint.

The trip was paid for by the Atlantic Council.  And who was a donor of the Atlantic Council?

BURISMA

Its all connected. More connections will come to light soon for anyone that wants to pay attention.

  according to Breitbart. You couldn't pay me enough to trust that source. Nice how you also conveniently left it that was a bipartisan trip,

[tim_m]

I obviously wasn't around for the days of Watergate, but i wonder if Nixon supporters had their heads this far up his ass an the Trump supporters.

[tim_m]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/464593-trump-associates-pressured-ukraine-over-gas-firm-in-order-to-benefit

[tim_m]

https://www.axios.com/trump-blamed-rick-perry-call-ukraine-zelensky-8178447a-0374-4ac6-b321-a9454b0565d4.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

Let's play a game, who will Trump their under the bus next?