• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office

Athanasius68 said:
Your own posts show that Trump's support collapsed after the birth graduate certificates were released. Not really clear of what else there is to say.
True, apparently Arpaio was beating the drum as late as 2016. But there was no presidential campaign around the issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, my own posts show that Trump's support after President Obama released his long form BC. I'm guessing " birth graduate certificates" is you just not really being able to focus on the facts. And I've shown everything you've posted about it was false. So if you're looking for something to say posting "wow vern, I really didn't know anything about the birther issue" would be a good start. And then you could even say " its shameful the way the conservative media pushed the birther lies" and " its embarrassing that about 50% of conservatives believed such ridiculous lies". then you could reflect on all the conservative narratives you've believed turned out to be false and wonder why conservatism is based on such dishonesty.
 
Vern said:
Athan, in addition to not addressing the fact that somebody is lying about trump’s involvement softening the language on Ukraine, you are also posting fantasy (again). York in no way pointed out the committee was ambivalent about anything and no way says she was the only one passionate about it. Again, conservatives wanted to send troops and or weapons because their conservative masters told them “sanctions were weak”.

And the dem platform on Ukraine has zero to do with Trump personally getting involved with the platform. The dem platform was consistent with President Obama’s policies, sanctions and trying to not escalate the situation. Contrast that to conservatives obediently flip flopping on the issue. Conservatives wanted to send troops and or weapons and the first thing trump tried to do was remove the sanctions. If just sanctions was weak by conservative standards what does that say about trump’s subservience to putin by trying to remove them? As usual, republicans talk tough but do the opposite. You know they did the same thing with deficits. Its definitely a pattern.

so to be clear, someone is lying about Trump's involvement in the platform change. Nothing changes that fact.
Click to expand...

Denman said Gordan was calling New York. Gordan denied talking to Trump. Both could be true.

You are correct that the York article cited did not speak about the opinion of the other delegates. Attached is the one that does:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2H9z7Vzw2PSFnZm9QmMb5W&cshid=1552829470578
The article points out that the GOP platform was stronger, not weaker, as a result of the changes.

It's true there were conservatives and Republicans who argued for sending military aid to Ukraine. I am not aware of any serious argument for sending American troops.
 
Vern said:
Yes, my own posts show that Trump's support after President Obama released his long form BC. I'm guessing " birth graduate certificates" is you just not really being able to focus on the facts. And I've shown everything you've posted about it was false. So if you're looking for something to say posting "wow vern, I really didn't know anything about the birther issue" would be a good start. And then you could even say " its shameful the way the conservative media pushed the birther lies" and " its embarrassing that about 50% of conservatives believed such ridiculous lies". then you could reflect on all the conservative narratives you've believed turned out to be false and wonder why conservatism is based on such dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Hang on. If the argument is that TRUMP continued to push the birther story after the birth certificate was revealed, after the birth announcement published, after the correction to the autobiography, ok, he did. Fair enough.

If the argument is that conservatives in general did, that would be false. Evidence of that can be seen in what you yourself cited-- the collapse of Trump's support in 2011.
 
noonereal said:
1 quarter. I am sure he wrote it off as marketing.
Click to expand...
Can you provide proof that Trump has not continued to donate his salary.

In late May 2018, we received a batch of inquiries from readers asking for verification of the claim that United States President Donald Trump had donated his first-quarter 2018 salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs.


As a candidate, Trump famously promised to forgo his entire $400,000-per-year presidential salary if elected, following in the footsteps of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover, both of whom were independently wealthy and donated the entirety of their salaries to charitable causes.

Thus far, Trump has made good on that vow, announcing quarterly donations during the first year of his presidency to four federal agencies: the National Park Service, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Transportation.

Each announcement has included the presentation of a signed check drawn on the president’s personal bank account to the appropriate department secretary, as in this example provided by Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke:
Click to expand...

He has been doing since he has been elected even Snopes rated his statement as true. AGAIN can you provide a quote from Trump that he was donating his entire salary to rebuild Veteran Cemeteries.
 
Last edited:
Vern said:
Oh look, another "nuh uh". Athan, I posted the facts that proved your "editorial" was less than honest (and that's being nice). Its quite telling that I get a one sentence "nuh uh" when you posted the double spaced random blurt to avoid addressing my other points (see preceding post). It means you cant even create a narrative out of thin air to defend the "editorial". the steele dossier was not "corroborating old news" as your "editorial" claims. Its just that simple.
Click to expand...

What needs to be recalled about the dossier is that it's a number of disparate reports from different people. Many of whom nobody, including Steele, knows who they are. Steele doesn't have first hand knowledge of any of his dossier's contents.

So yes, when the article shows that certain claims in the dossier were repeats of what had already been in the news, yes, that can be called 'old news.' We after all, would have no idea how the guy who sent the info to Steele got it.
 
Mycroft said:
Schiffty still trying to influence public opinion with unsupported nonsense.

Oh...wait...it IS supported nonsense. Supported by Cohen. LOL!!
Click to expand...

You know when I read crap like this, it reminds me that Richard Nixon left office with 29% of Americans still believing he did nothing wrong. Spiro Agnew, a man that was literally taking cash bribes in the White House, had strong support in the Republican base the day he resigned.

There are over 7 billion people in this world, all of them, other than Trump's Republican base, see him for the despicable scumbag he is.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Hang on. If the argument is that TRUMP continued to push the birther story after the birth certificate was revealed, after the birth announcement published, after the correction to the autobiography, ok, he did. Fair enough.

If the argument is that conservatives in general did, that would be false. Evidence of that can be seen in what you yourself cited-- the collapse of Trump's support in 2011.
Click to expand...
Vern only wants to smear he really doesn't want to provide facts. He lies about me and others. Some of us never gave credence to the whole birther thing.
 
JacksinPA said:
Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office | TheHill

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that President Trump should probably be indicted once he leaves the White House for his alleged role in campaign finance law violations and bank fraud.

Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty last year to multiple crimes he says he carried out at Trump's behest, though most legal experts agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
==================================
If he gets reelected, he may be able to avoid this via the statute of limitations But if he loses next year, all bets are off.
Click to expand...

Schiff hates Trump, but not corrupt democrats. Trump's supposed campaign violations are subject to interpretation and debate. Baby Cortez's misdeeds are clear and undeniable violations of campaign finance laws and if anyone should be charged it is her.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
~snipped the irrelevant past history~

There are over 7 billion people in this world, all of them, other than Trump's Republican base, see him for the despicable scumbag he is.
Click to expand...

BS.

You trying to speak for "7 billion people" is the height of hyperbole.

Dismissed.
 
Athanasius68 said:
What needs to be recalled about the dossier is that it's a number of disparate reports from different people. Many of whom nobody, including Steele, knows who they are. Steele doesn't have first hand knowledge of any of his dossier's contents.

So yes, when the article shows that certain claims in the dossier were repeats of what had already been in the news, yes, that can be called 'old news.' We after all, would have no idea how the guy who sent the info to Steele got it.
Click to expand...

Steele got information from BS sources. Christopher Steele admitted using posts by 'random individuals' on CNN website to back up Trump dossier

According to deposition transcripts released this week, Steele said last year he used a 2009 report he found on CNN's iReport website and said he wasn't aware that submissions to that site are posted by members of the public and are not checked for accuracy.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You know when I read crap like this, it reminds me that Richard Nixon left office with 29% of Americans still believing he did nothing wrong. Spiro Agnew, a man that was literally taking cash bribes in the White House, had strong support in the Republican base the day he resigned.
Click to expand...

More democrats then that believed Bill Clinton was innocent and that Hillary did nothing wrong with her email server. What's your point?

There are over 7 billion people in this world, all of them, other than Trump's Republican base, see him for the despicable scumbag he is.

The dislike (massively overstated) of Trump by the 7 billion all over the world as you claim is a positive as far as I am concerned. Most of them support a globalist movement that has been going on since the end of the cold war where ultimately every nation at some level takes orders from the United nations. That's one reason they voted in favor of Brexit in the UK. Primarily the brits woke up and decided for instance they did not want their immigration policy decided by EU or UN bureaucrats in Brussels. Ans for American dislike of Trump, it is primarily left wing democrats are simply unable to emotionally accept defeat in the 2016 presidential election. Even some in the republican party who claim to dislike Trump simply do not want to shake up the apple cart with a non-establishment politician.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Well, the first hurdle to jump would be whether Cohen was directed by Trump. Which would seem plausible on the face of it-- why would Cohen give his own money to the girls and why would he be paid back?

The second hurdle would be whether such payments were in fact illegal. There is a pretty strong argument that they were not.

The third hurdle is if in fact it was illegal, whether Trump knew it was illegal.
Click to expand...

Cohen testified that he didnt even consider whether the payments were improper, let alone illegal. Criminal campaign finance law requires an element of intent that Cohen didnt have. He plead guilty to a crime he wasnt guilty of. And he testified that he made the payments and lied to Mrs Trump about them. Not lied to the FEC about them. These werent campaign finance donations. And Cohen was guilty because the amount exceeded the $2700 maximum amount allowed from an individual. Trump reimbursed him which means it wasnt a contribution from Cohen but from Trump. Even if it was determined to be a campaign donation, an individual isnt limited to $2700 when contributing to their own campaign.
 
SLC said:
Spin, Spin, Spin, we are talking about your habit of lying now not others. If Bush jump off of a multistory building would you? Own up for your lies and reform and stop lying.
Click to expand...


Translation : “wah wah wah”. Assuming you’re a birther doesn’t make me a liar. You’re just using the “snowflake” routine to avoid discussing my points in an honest and intelligent fashion. But its good that you admit that Bush is a liar by your newfound standard. He’s also a liar by any normal standard. anyhoo, you also called Schiff a liar. I've explained you need to back up your points. You seem to want whine about me instead. Can you please back that up. I suspect you are lying (by your delicate standards). thanks in advance
 
Athanasius68 said:
Hang on. If the argument is that TRUMP continued to push the birther story after the birth certificate was revealed, after the birth announcement published, after the correction to the autobiography, ok, he did. Fair enough.

If the argument is that conservatives in general did, that would be false. Evidence of that can be seen in what you yourself cited-- the collapse of Trump's support in 2011.
Click to expand...

Athan, you are arguing things I didn’t say and are unable to grasp what I’ve posted. I get this a lot from conservatives who post nonsense and try to act like they didn’t. sometimes I just assume their brains are simply unable to process the clear straight forward points I make. Sometimes I just assume it’s a dishonesty. Maybe English isnt your first language. Who knows?

Anyhoo, you seem to have some notion that I’m saying a large percentage of conseratives are still birthers. I have said repeatedly and clearly, a large percentage if not majority of conservaitves were bithers. I’ve clearly stated that “birtherism died down somewhat after President Obama released his long form BC. Instead of “implying” I’m contradicting myself, cut and paste what I’ve posted. This is critical: don’t paraphrase what you think I said. As you’ve clearly demonstrated, your opinon is the one you should trust the least.

And fyi, conservatives get really mad if you call them a birther because it considered quite the insult. Even the ones that were birthers get mad. They seemed to get the maddest. That’s because they know it shows what gullible fools they were and don’t want to discuss it (see above).
 
Athanasius68 said:
What needs to be recalled about the dossier is that it's a number of disparate reports from different people. Many of whom nobody, including Steele, knows who they are. Steele doesn't have first hand knowledge of any of his dossier's contents.
So yes, when the article shows that certain claims in the dossier were repeats of what had already been in the news, yes, that can be called 'old news.' We after all, would have no idea how the guy who sent the info to Steele got it.
Click to expand...

who knows what you're trying to say in the bolded part but since you've continually posted things your made up, I'll just ignore it. Again, your "nuh uh" changes no facts. Sure this "nuh uh" has more words than the first 3 but its still the same. I’m going to type this very slow for you: Your “editorial” did not show “corroborated claims” (you tried to slip in the word "certain", the word was "corroborated) were just “repeats of what was in the news”. I’ve proven that. Here it is again, special for you. Stop pretending not to know it.

Vern said:
Just so you know, you're posting a conservative editorial to dispute the facts. But the good news is that NR is abandoning the original conservative narrative "false inaccurate dossier” and going with “old news" when means they concede its accuracy. This disputes the “old news” narrative from your "editorial" "

Parts of the dossier have proved prescient. Its main assertion — that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected — was hardly an established fact when it was first laid out by Mr. Steele in June 2016. But it has since been backed up by the United States’ own intelligence agencies — and Mr. Mueller’s investigation.

Tech Firm in Steele Dossier May Have Been Used by Russian Spies - The New York Times

And don’t forget, Trump still doesn’t believe Russia was behind the hacks. So NR also admits that trump is either very dumb or dishonest.

The president has long expressed doubt that Russia was behind the 2016 attacks, and the 11-count indictment illustrates even more the distance between his skepticism and the nearly unanimous views of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies he leads.
12 Russian Agents Indicted in Mueller Investigation - The New York Times

and to be quite specific, it wasn’t “old news” where the attacks came from.

Web infrastructure owned by a Russian internet entrepreneur named in the Christopher Steele dossier may have been used to support the hack on the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, a private intelligence report newly unsealed in federal court alleges.

Report: Tech Company In Steele Dossier May Have Been Used To Support DNC Hack

That’s why your “editorial” has to be vague and non specific about their claims. So I’m satisfied with a respected British spy whose work was vindicated by US intelligence agencies. Are you satisfied with NR’s “nuh uh”?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom