• 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!

Congressional testimony backs up McCabe

GDViking said:
They weren't watching him they were watching people he was in contact with.
Click to expand...

I don't know. It's gone back and forth about this. Comey was telling Trump privately that he was NOT a subject of investigation. But publically he was implying Trump was.
 
Athanasius68 said:
I don't know. It's gone back and forth about this. Comey was telling Trump privately that he was NOT a subject of investigation. But publically he was implying Trump was.
Click to expand...

Well, when everyone around Trump gets indicted and then convicted...it's pretty obvious the guy is crooked as ****.
 
GDViking said:
Yet he was still working for them...
Click to expand...

No. When somebody is fired, they no longer work for that organization.
That's what the word 'fired' in this context mean.
 
haymarket said:
You have not seen the video of Trump inviting the Russians to help him?

Where oh where have you been for two and a half years????? :roll::shock:

Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton. Were They Listening? - The New York Times

Trump broke US law by asking Russians to find Hillary Clinton emails
Click to expand...

You mean this quote;

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”

Apparently reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

The NYT link is funny *Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton* there was nothing to hack.

The USAToday link is cute also, Trump didn't ask, he said if you find. They obviously have the same reading comprehension problems you have.
 
hanger4 said:
You mean this quote;

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”

Apparently reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

The NYT link is funny *Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton* there was nothing to hack.

The USAToday link is cute also, Trump didn't ask, he said if you find. They obviously have the same reading comprehension problems you have.
Click to expand...

And as if Russia needed an invitation to hack the private server of the former American Sec of State..
 
hanger4 said:
You mean this quote;

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”

Apparently reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

The NYT link is funny *Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton* there was nothing to hack.

The USAToday link is cute also, Trump didn't ask, he said if you find. They obviously have the same reading comprehension problems you have.
Click to expand...

What is it you are pretending to deny?

Trump invited the Russians to help him. That is an established fact. His own words prove it.

His top campaign people accepted a meeting for the expressed purpose of obtaining help from the Russians in the campaign. That is an established fact. The email chain proves it.

Your "reading comprehension" insults are simply petty and irrational and do not change the reality that these facts are long established.
 
haymarket said:
What is it you are pretending to deny?

Trump invited the Russians to help him. That is an established fact. His own words prove it.

His top campaign people accepted a meeting for the expressed purpose of obtaining help from the Russians in the campaign. That is an established fact. The email chain proves it.

Your "reading comprehension" insults are simply petty and irrational and do not change the reality that these facts are long established.
Click to expand...

*Trump invited the Russians to help him. That is an established fact. His own words prove it.*

His words prove nothing of the sort. I posted the quote and in no way can one claim helps was being asked. Trump said "if you find" not help me find.

*His top campaign people accepted a meeting for the expressed purpose of obtaining help from the Russians in the campaign. That is an established fact. The email chain proves it.*

If opposition research from Russians is inviting them in then the DNC / Clinton Campaign gots som splainin to do.

*Your "reading comprehension" insults are simply petty and irrational and do not change the reality that these facts are long established.*

Your insistence that "if you find" is asking for help to find or hack (hack something that doesn't exist, too funny) is proof that your reading comprehension skills need sharpening.
 
hanger4 said:
*Trump invited the Russians to help him. That is an established fact. His own words prove it.*

His words prove nothing of the sort. I posted the quote and in no way can one claim helps was being asked. Trump said "if you find" not help me find.
Click to expand...

Playing dumb and living in denial of reality is not a good debate argument. Trump asked the Russians to help him and the did that very day.

*His top campaign people accepted a meeting for the expressed purpose of obtaining help from the Russians in the campaign. That is an established fact. The email chain proves it.*

If opposition research from Russians is inviting them in then the DNC / Clinton Campaign gots som splainin to do.
Click to expand...

The Trump campaign violated federal law. Even a noted conservative like Charles Krauthammer on FOX admitted this was collusion.
Clinton has nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting other than being the victim of the illegal collusion.

*Your "reading comprehension" insults are simply petty and irrational and do not change the reality that these facts are long established.*

Your insistence that "if you find" is asking for help to find or hack (hack something that doesn't exist, too funny) is proof that your reading comprehension skills need sharpening
Click to expand...

The only skills in question are you ability to live in reality.
 
haymarket said:
Playing dumb and living in denial of reality is not a good debate argument. Trump asked the Russians to help him and the did that very day.



The Trump campaign violated federal law. Even a noted conservative like Charles Krauthammer on FOX admitted this was collusion.
Clinton has nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting other than being the victim of the illegal collusion.



The only skills in question are you ability to live in reality.
Click to expand...

1) Quote Trump inviting Russia in and or quote Trump asking for Russian help.

2) That has yet to be determined. Krauthammer claimed unconsummated collusion. The DNC / Clinton Campaign financed dossier was gleaned from Russians, so yes it has relevance.
 
hanger4 said:
1) Quote Trump inviting Russia in and or quote Trump asking for Russian help.

2) That has yet to be determined. Krauthammer claimed unconsummated collusion. The DNC / Clinton Campaign financed dossier was gleaned from Russians, so yes it has relevance.
Click to expand...

Why would you ask for Trump quote that you already provided in your own post? That is just bizarre and really dishonest.

What you ask for was already provided in the links I have already posted. Again, one has to question your ethics here.

Collusion is collusion is collusion. Taking the meeting for the purpose of getting illegal campaign help was collusion.

The Clinton campaign's dossier was legally purchased from an American company - Fusion GPS so no law was violated.
 
apdst said:
The Russian collusiin investigatiin conducted in 2016.
Click to expand...

Again ... How is it illegal?

Here is a serious question from me to you: What would Trump have to do to lose your loyalty? How low, how despicable, how anti-American would his crime(s) have to be for you to finally give up on him?
 
Idiometer said:
Again ... How is it illegal?

Here is a serious question from me to you: What would Trump have to do to lose your loyalty? How low, how despicable, how anti-American would his crime(s) have to be for you to finally give up on him?
Click to expand...

What has Trump done that’s “anti-American”? He has done nothing to curtail individual liberties of Americans.
 
Lutherf said:
If you're familiar with the Constitution you already know that the process is laid out for exactly that circumstance.
Click to expand...

What circumstance? Just taking his word for it? "I know I was acting demeted, but I'm okay now, honest! Can I be president again?" Really, wouldn't medical professionals be consulted?
 
Lutherf said:
Just because you don't like what someone says or don't like how they go about doing things does not mean that they have dementia or that they are incapable of performing the duties of the office of the President of the United States. Declaring someone unfit for office on purely political grounds is, for all intents, a coup de etat.
Click to expand...

This is not about what anyone likes or dislikes. Good grief! That's a child's answer. This is about the real possibility that the President of the United States may be severly compromised by his dealings with the dictator of an adversarial foreign power.

I'll ask you the same question I asked another: What crime(s) would Trump have to commit in order to lose your blind loyalty?

Again, this isn't about liking or disliking, this is about American sovereignty, security, patriotism, and the values we hold and project to the world, all of which has been severely damaged by this president.
 
apdst said:
Exactly! You seriously don't see the conflict? :lamo

If she would have gotten elected, they both would have benefited financially.
Click to expand...

Hopeless. Please look up the FEC rules.
 
Idiometer said:
Again ... How is it illegal?
Click to expand...

Again, there were no legal grounds to justify opening the investigation. They lied to a Federal judge to get the FISA warrants. That's how it was illegal

Here is a serious question from me to you: What would Trump have to do to lose your loyalty? How low, how despicable, how anti-American would his crime(s) have to be for you to finally give up on him?
Click to expand...

Show me an actual crime and then ask the the same question.
 
GDViking said:
No in other words just what has been made public shows collusion, and there are dozens of sealed indictments. We don't know what's in those.
We do however know that manafort fed internal information to the Russians so they could target their propaganda.

Sounds a LOT like collusion to me...
Click to expand...

Show me one charge of collusion made by Mueller. Of course, there are none.
 
GDViking said:
Well if sessions was one of those in the discussion it certainly would apply.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't apply because the reasons they were offering have nothing to do with incapacitation. They needed to be talking about impeachment but, even there, that is within the purview of Congress.
 
apdst said:
There were no legal grounds to open the investigation.
Click to expand...

Are you for real?

There had been numerous contacts between Trump's top campaign officials and Russians prior to the FBI launching their initial investigation in July 2016. If that isn't legal grounds, nothing is. Here's a timeline; note the known activities that took place prior to July 2016:

Timeline of Russia Investigation - FactCheck.org

Click on some of the links to supporting reports and articles.

There was nothing illegal about this investigation.
 
Idiometer said:
This is not about what anyone likes or dislikes. Good grief! That's a child's answer. This is about the real possibility that the President of the United States may be severly compromised by his dealings with the dictator of an adversarial foreign power.

I'll ask you the same question I asked another: What crime(s) would Trump have to commit in order to lose your blind loyalty?

Again, this isn't about liking or disliking, this is about American sovereignty, security, patriotism, and the values we hold and project to the world, all of which has been severely damaged by this president.
Click to expand...

You're only saying that because you hate him and you can't create an intelligent argument against him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom