Jan. 21, 2017.“I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.) Jan. 21, 2017.“A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.) Jan. 23, 2017.“Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.) Jan. 25, 2017.“Now, the audience was the biggest ever. But this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive.” (Official aerial photos show Obama's 2009 inauguration was much more heavily attended.) Jan. 25, 2017.“Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.) Jan. 25, 2017.“You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.) Jan. 25, 2017.“So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that.” (There were no gun homicide victims in Chicago that day.) Jan. 26, 2017.“We've taken in tens of thousands of people. We know nothing about them. They can say they vet them. They didn't vet them. They have no papers. How can you vet somebody when you don't know anything about them and you have no papers? How do you vet them? You can't.” (Vetting lasts up to two years.) Jan. 26, 2017.“I cut off hundreds of millions of dollars off one particular plane, hundreds of millions of dollars in a short period of time. It wasn't like I spent, like, weeks, hours, less than hours, and many, many hundreds of millions of dollars. And the plane's going to be better.” (Most of the cuts were already planned.) Jan. 28, 2017.“The coverage about me in the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost has been so false and angry that the Times actually apologized to its dwindling subscribers and readers.” (It never apologized.) Jan. 29, 2017.“The Cuban-Americans, I got 84 percent of that vote.” (There is no support for this.) Jan. 30, 2017.“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage.” (At least 746 people were detained and processed, and the Delta outage happened two days later.)
Because real government law enforcement agencies do not start multi-million dollar counter-intelligent investigations into political opponents of the White House...
based on a third hand report of a drunken conversation.
If they do actually start multi-million dollar investigations into political opponents on third hand reports of drunken conversations, then that particular law enforcement agency is politically corrupt.
I suspect that if you could see past your TDS that you might actually understand.
The eighty months of consecutive economic growth is a historical record.
This was in response to the deepest recession since 1929. The economy was losing 400,000 jobs per month. Trump was handed an economy in fantastic condition. To his credit, he didn't fuck it up. Let's hope that the economy continues to improve. But we have to be alert because he's not sane folks.
If the Trump/Sessions DOJ was to order the FBI to conduct an investigation into his 2020 Democratic political opponent. If they were to garner FICA warrants to eavesdrop on the campaign members of Trump's 2020 Democratic political opponent. If the Trump/Sessions DOJ was unmasking conversations involving the campaign of his political opponents (at any time).
I would expect that there would have to be an extremely transparent and reasonable explanation for it. If Trump/Sessions came back claiming that they based the investigation and warrants on a third hand account of a drunken conversation between a low level campaign worker of his opponent and some foreign diplomat... I would call for Sessions and Trump to both be impeached... and anyone involved with the illegal unmasking to be jailed.
The bar to have a Republican President investigate a Democratic political candidate for President, or a Democratic President investigate a Republican political candidate for President... should be sky high. The explanation and reasons for it would have to be completely 100% beyond reproach. There should't be even the slightest "sliver" of partisanship, or even the slightest question to the legitimacy.
And lastly, you better be able to prove it, once you start it.
But that is how "I" see it Roger. I wouldn't put up with Trump doing it, just as I wouldn't put up with Obama doing it.
Lol. Oh roger, any , and do mean any leads on Identification of the people mind warped by Putin to vote Trump, when they were dead set on voting Hillary?
Seriously, your Trumpism infested mind TIM® has lead you to believe that because the FBI investigation was not promptly launched, is not valid for reasons that you cannot understand.
This was an investigation into the actions of the President of the United States.
They didn't jump in immediately before they could verify the validity of the information.
And no, if President Hillary Rodham Clinton colluded with the Russians to commit treason, I would be calling out for ##impeachment.
Former White House strategist Steve Bannon called a Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” according to a new book about President Trump’s first year in office.
Bannon said special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia will “crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”
John McCain and Elizabeth Warren grill John Rood on military deals with Lockheed Martin Watch Full Screen Bannon made the comments to author Michael Wolff for his new book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” which was obtained by the Guardian before its release next week.
Trump’s son, son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York in June 2016 during the presidential campaign.
The meeting came under scrutiny after an intermediary promised documents that would be damaging to rival Hillary Clinton. “I love it,” Trump Jr. replied in an email.
“The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers,” Bannon told Wolff. “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
Bannon expects Mueller’s investigation will focus on money laundering.
“You realize where this is going,” Bannon said. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”
Four members of the Trump campaign have been indicted, including Manafort. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to money laundering charges brought by Mueller late last year.
The president and his allies have denied any collusion.
We don't know if the FBI investigation was launched for valid reasons or not.
The information that led to the FBI decisions, what was submitted to FICA for warrants, and everything about the "reasoning" is currently under Congressional subpoena.
The FBI director and Rob Rosenstein are stonewalling the release of said information to Congress.
Why do you suppose that is, Roger? Why are they refusing to turn over information required for constitutional congressional oversight? (answer that question to yourself).
Congress will eventually get it, Roger. They will see what the actual reasoning was for the investigation, the warrants, unmasking, etc. Then Congress will be able to make a presentation to the public about how it all went down.
I will withhold my judgement till I have the actual facts. Because they will come out.
You will keep chasing the "latest reports" from whichever reporter claims to have the goods today, which invariably contradict the "latest reports" from a few weeks ago. All based on the anonymous tips of former government officials "familiar" with the probe.
Bannon's statements are a matter of "his opinion" regarding things we already know.
If he is correct about "money laundering" and the fact that Mueller brought money laundering prosecutors into the mix to chase that...
It would simply be more proof that the investigation is a scam. That Russian collusion was just a bad excuse to go off and investigate Trump and members of his campaign... an investigation in search of crimes.
Something that is actually flat out unconstitutional in any other situation.
But, hey Rog!
The fact that you applaud the idea of Mueller hiring "money laundering" experts for a special counsel probe about Russian hacking and election collusion... exposes you for what we all know.
Someone who is not at all interested in the truth about the election. Just another partisan hack who wants to see someone from the Trump campaign "go down" because you are still angry with the election results.
Bannon thinks that the Trump Tower meeting was treason and that Mueller is going after money laundering, right to the top.
I don't know about treason, but he's right that the investigation is going to rise and fall on the money trail. It is possible for money laundering to tie in with the so-called collusion, or equally possible to be separate and distinct. Time will tell, and unfortunately it takes much longer to investigate and prove those kinds of financial crimes. This won't be over any time soon.
This is why you should #resign because your irrational comment that I haven't accepted the election of Trump.
This is why you should let me post again. Someone has to be sane.
Someone who is not at all interested in the truth about the election. Just another partisan hack who wants to see someone from the Trump campaign "go down" because you are still angry with the election results.
This is very simple. So so called derangement syndromes happen to people who are upset with how something turns out. Those who are not upset with how things turned out, do not suffer from emotional issues that cloud their judgement.
- One of us is perfectly fine with the results of the election. Therefor, this person is "not" prone to emotional issues that cloud his judgement. - One of us cannot stop expressing his disappointment, and ranting about the evil of the person who won. This person clearly is not in control of his emotions and is not behaving in a rational manner.
So when person "A" doesn't seem to be particularly upset by the actions of Donald Trump... whereas person "B" seems to believe that (for the 100th time since January) that these actions are the worst thing that any President has ever done.
The reality will pretty much fall under the scope of the person who is not emotionally vested, rather than the one who is controlled by his emotions.
____
Moreover...
The fact that person "B" is constantly "upset" that others do not agree with his point of view... is proof positive that deep down, person "A" knows his behavior and feelings is not really normal or necessarily valid. Person "A" understands that his viewpoints are generally not intuitive or easily explained without the hatred that comes from their very soul.
On the flip side. Person "A" couldn't care less whether or not anyone agrees with him. He doesn't need validation of his views, because he instinctively understands that his views are driven by an ability to view and judge without emotion and from a safe objective viewing distance. He is simply calling it how it is. No emotional support is needed for this view.
This is very simple. So so called derangement syndromes happen to people who are upset with how something turns out. Those who are not upset with how things turned out, do not suffer from emotional issues that cloud their judgement.
So so called derangement syndromes happen to people who are upset with how something turns out. Those who are not upset with how things turned out, do not suffer from emotional issues that cloud their judgement.
Don't use logic here, that's also a sign of "TDS".
33 comments:
HA!
Nothing like the smell of TDS the first thing in the morning!
Jan. 21, 2017.“I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)
Jan. 21, 2017.“A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)
Jan. 23, 2017.“Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)
Jan. 25, 2017.“Now, the audience was the biggest ever. But this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive.” (Official aerial photos show Obama's 2009 inauguration was much more heavily attended.)
Jan. 25, 2017.“Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.)
Jan. 25, 2017.“You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.)
Jan. 25, 2017.“So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that.” (There were no gun homicide victims in Chicago that day.)
Jan. 26, 2017.“We've taken in tens of thousands of people. We know nothing about them. They can say they vet them. They didn't vet them. They have no papers. How can you vet somebody when you don't know anything about them and you have no papers? How do you vet them? You can't.” (Vetting lasts up to two years.)
Jan. 26, 2017.“I cut off hundreds of millions of dollars off one particular plane, hundreds of millions of dollars in a short period of time. It wasn't like I spent, like, weeks, hours, less than hours, and many, many hundreds of millions of dollars. And the plane's going to be better.” (Most of the cuts were already planned.)
Jan. 28, 2017.“The coverage about me in the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost has been so false and angry that the Times actually apologized to its dwindling subscribers and readers.” (It never apologized.)
Jan. 29, 2017.“The Cuban-Americans, I got 84 percent of that vote.” (There is no support for this.)
Jan. 30, 2017.“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage.” (At least 746 people were detained and processed, and the Delta outage happened two days later.)
So explain to me that why you think that the drunken meeting never discussed (dirt on Clinton)?
If the answer is no, explain why you doubt the story in the New York Times is false.
If the answer is yes, they met, and then why the FBI the investigation was not promptly started it is not valid?
The Four Liberal Stooges, you stupid fucks.
Look here:
"ISM Manufacturing Index Rockets to 14 year High".
Anyone missing the obimbo years?
Roger...
Because real government law enforcement agencies do not start multi-million dollar counter-intelligent investigations into political opponents of the White House...
based on a third hand report of a drunken conversation.
If they do actually start multi-million dollar investigations into political opponents on third hand reports of drunken conversations, then that particular law enforcement agency is politically corrupt.
I suspect that if you could see past your TDS that you might actually understand.
The eighty months of consecutive economic growth is a historical record.
This was in response to the deepest recession since 1929. The economy was losing 400,000 jobs per month. Trump was handed an economy in fantastic condition. To his credit, he didn't fuck it up. Let's hope that the economy continues to improve. But we have to be alert because he's not sane folks.
To put it in perspective Roger...
If the Trump/Sessions DOJ was to order the FBI to conduct an investigation into his 2020 Democratic political opponent. If they were to garner FICA warrants to eavesdrop on the campaign members of Trump's 2020 Democratic political opponent. If the Trump/Sessions DOJ was unmasking conversations involving the campaign of his political opponents (at any time).
I would expect that there would have to be an extremely transparent and reasonable explanation for it. If Trump/Sessions came back claiming that they based the investigation and warrants on a third hand account of a drunken conversation between a low level campaign worker of his opponent and some foreign diplomat... I would call for Sessions and Trump to both be impeached... and anyone involved with the illegal unmasking to be jailed.
The bar to have a Republican President investigate a Democratic political candidate for President, or a Democratic President investigate a Republican political candidate for President... should be sky high. The explanation and reasons for it would have to be completely 100% beyond reproach. There should't be even the slightest "sliver" of partisanship, or even the slightest question to the legitimacy.
And lastly, you better be able to prove it, once you start it.
But that is how "I" see it Roger. I wouldn't put up with Trump doing it, just as I wouldn't put up with Obama doing it.
Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Steve Bannon says in explosive book
Lol. Oh roger, any , and do mean any leads on Identification of the people mind warped by Putin to vote Trump, when they were dead set on voting Hillary?
Seriously, your Trumpism infested mind TIM® has lead you to believe that because the FBI investigation was not promptly launched, is not valid for reasons that you cannot understand.
This was an investigation into the actions of the President of the United States.
They didn't jump in immediately before they could verify the validity of the information.
And no, if President Hillary Rodham Clinton colluded with the Russians to commit treason, I would be calling out for ##impeachment.
Former White House strategist Steve Bannon called a Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” according to a new book about President Trump’s first year in office.
Bannon said special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia will “crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”
John McCain and Elizabeth Warren grill John Rood on military deals with Lockheed Martin
Watch Full Screen
Bannon made the comments to author Michael Wolff for his new book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” which was obtained by the Guardian before its release next week.
Trump’s son, son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York in June 2016 during the presidential campaign.
The meeting came under scrutiny after an intermediary promised documents that would be damaging to rival Hillary Clinton. “I love it,” Trump Jr. replied in an email.
“The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers,” Bannon told Wolff. “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
Bannon expects Mueller’s investigation will focus on money laundering.
“You realize where this is going,” Bannon said. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”
Four members of the Trump campaign have been indicted, including Manafort. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to money laundering charges brought by Mueller late last year.
The president and his allies have denied any collusion.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/steve-bannon-describes-trump-tower-meeting-with-russians-as-treasonous-report/article/2644822
Roger -
We don't know if the FBI investigation was launched for valid reasons or not.
The information that led to the FBI decisions, what was submitted to FICA for warrants, and everything about the "reasoning" is currently under Congressional subpoena.
The FBI director and Rob Rosenstein are stonewalling the release of said information to Congress.
Why do you suppose that is, Roger? Why are they refusing to turn over information required for constitutional congressional oversight? (answer that question to yourself).
Congress will eventually get it, Roger. They will see what the actual reasoning was for the investigation, the warrants, unmasking, etc. Then Congress will be able to make a presentation to the public about how it all went down.
I will withhold my judgement till I have the actual facts. Because they will come out.
You will keep chasing the "latest reports" from whichever reporter claims to have the goods today, which invariably contradict the "latest reports" from a few weeks ago. All based on the anonymous tips of former government officials "familiar" with the probe.
Bannon's statements are a matter of "his opinion" regarding things we already know.
If he is correct about "money laundering" and the fact that Mueller brought money laundering prosecutors into the mix to chase that...
It would simply be more proof that the investigation is a scam. That Russian collusion was just a bad excuse to go off and investigate Trump and members of his campaign... an investigation in search of crimes.
Something that is actually flat out unconstitutional in any other situation.
But, hey Rog!
The fact that you applaud the idea of Mueller hiring "money laundering" experts for a special counsel probe about Russian hacking and election collusion... exposes you for what we all know.
Someone who is not at all interested in the truth about the election. Just another partisan hack who wants to see someone from the Trump campaign "go down" because you are still angry with the election results.
I love Trump tweets because it is a daily lighting the Liberals on FIRE.
HB Believes 25 % unemployment 1929 is = to 7.8% unemployment "W" top rate.
HB Believes 14.6 % Inflation of the Carter years = 4.8 % Inflation "W" top rate.
Bannon thinks that the Trump Tower meeting was treason and that Mueller is going after money laundering, right to the top.
I don't know about treason, but he's right that the investigation is going to rise and fall on the money trail. It is possible for money laundering to tie in with the so-called collusion, or equally possible to be separate and distinct. Time will tell, and unfortunately it takes much longer to investigate and prove those kinds of financial crimes. This won't be over any time soon.
It's not that Bannon had much of a political future to begin with, now it's dead as a doornail.
Establishment Republicans always hated and mistrusted him.
Now Trump populists hate and mistrust him.
And liberal Democrats have always hated him.
He may become the new David Brock of the 21st century.
If not over by July. 2018. Anything announced after that day is released to influence the fall ellection.
Yep.
Spam by the drunken creeper.
Liar.
This is why you should #resign because your irrational comment that I haven't accepted the election of Trump.
This is why you should let me post again. Someone has to be sane.
Someone who is not at all interested in the truth about the election. Just another partisan hack who wants to see someone from the Trump campaign "go down" because you are still angry with the election results.
You guys realize that hashtags only works in twitter and facebook right?
As for somebody sane to post Roger? You're the last person in the world I would allow to post on a serious blog.
Letting you post to begin with was CH's worst mistake.
Roger -
This is very simple. So so called derangement syndromes happen to people who are upset with how something turns out. Those who are not upset with how things turned out, do not suffer from emotional issues that cloud their judgement.
- One of us is perfectly fine with the results of the election. Therefor, this person is "not" prone to emotional issues that cloud his judgement.
- One of us cannot stop expressing his disappointment, and ranting about the evil of the person who won. This person clearly is not in control of his emotions and is not behaving in a rational manner.
So when person "A" doesn't seem to be particularly upset by the actions of Donald Trump... whereas person "B" seems to believe that (for the 100th time since January) that these actions are the worst thing that any President has ever done.
The reality will pretty much fall under the scope of the person who is not emotionally vested, rather than the one who is controlled by his emotions.
____
Moreover...
The fact that person "B" is constantly "upset" that others do not agree with his point of view... is proof positive that deep down, person "A" knows his behavior and feelings is not really normal or necessarily valid. Person "A" understands that his viewpoints are generally not intuitive or easily explained without the hatred that comes from their very soul.
On the flip side. Person "A" couldn't care less whether or not anyone agrees with him. He doesn't need validation of his views, because he instinctively understands that his views are driven by an ability to view and judge without emotion and from a safe objective viewing distance. He is simply calling it how it is. No emotional support is needed for this view.
"This is why you should let me post again. Someone has to be sane."
LOL.
Start your own blog chicken shit.
Firefighters respond to a house fire at Hillary Clinton's Mansion.
Pres. Trump lite the witch on fire.
US Construction Spending Rocketed to a new ALL TIME HIGH.
Progress never achieved during the Obama Terms are to be credited to him.
The accountant is now a psychologist.
This is very simple. So so called derangement syndromes happen to people who are upset with how something turns out. Those who are not upset with how things turned out, do not suffer from emotional issues that cloud their judgement.
Look in the mirror.
Look in the mirror
yes alky, please do. and brush those tartared yellow teeth.
oh, and begging for posting rights? shows poor form, alky. you lost those rights for a reason, and they ain't never coming back.
Those who are not upset with how things turned out, do not suffer from emotional issues that cloud their judgement." Schedule 1 abuser
Really, those that agree with the US Constitutionally held and verified out come to the 2016 Election are to problem.
WOW, which leftist rag planned that shit in your skull.
So so called derangement syndromes happen to people who are upset with how something turns out. Those who are not upset with how things turned out, do not suffer from emotional issues that cloud their judgement.
Don't use logic here, that's also a sign of "TDS".
Post a Comment