Aseahawkfan wrote:So another article of possibilities with nothing yet concrete to work with. I get so tired of these. It most certainly is an inquisition and a witch hunt. Why they try to make it seem like this is anything but Democrats using whatever petty power they have to go after Trump? No one with any sense believes this is anything more than political payback and grandstanding by the Democrats. This is the ultimate in petty by the Dems. I hope the Republicans fully repay it to them for years. Every single dark crime by any Democrat needs to be brought out in public, all their finances attacked, and all of this behavior by the Democrats needs to be paid back. I hope the Democrats reap it in the coming years for this trash.
Aseahawkfan wrote:So another article of possibilities with nothing yet concrete to work with. I get so tired of these. It most certainly is an inquisition and a witch hunt. Why they try to make it seem like this is anything but Democrats using whatever petty power they have to go after Trump? No one with any sense believes this is anything more than political payback and grandstanding by the Democrats. This is the ultimate in petty by the Dems. I hope the Republicans fully repay it to them for years. Every single dark crime by any Democrat needs to be brought out in public, all their finances attacked, and all of this behavior by the Democrats needs to be paid back. I hope the Democrats reap it in the coming years for this trash.
c_hawkbob wrote:You do realize that "nothing yet concrete to work with" is every bit as unfounded an assumption as "they got the goods on him for sure now", right?
c_hawkbob wrote:I agree, there's just too much there for it all to be fake news ... and as the indictments hit closer and closer to center mass I imagine it's only a matter of time until the dots are connected for us all. I'm willing to wait till then to get definitive about things.
RiverDog wrote:At this point, I'm of the opinion that there's a lot of "goods" in multiple aspects of Trump's campaign. We already know that he, or rather his surrogates, paid off two women not to go public with his extra marital affairs with him prior to the election, and we know that he and/or his surrogates have lied about their meetings with the Russians and the election meddling. And as HT points out, there's a good chance that more close Trump associates, perhaps even his family members, might get ensnared in this apparent influencing peddling involving the inaguration ceremony.
Now there's a breaking story over the weekend involving Jeff Bezos and a possible motive for an alleged blackmail attempt against him made by the parent company of the National Enquirer (owned by a close friend of Trump's) and the Saudi government:
https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-a ... rer-2019-2
As we know, Trump all but exonerated the Saudi's of what just about everybody in the world, including our own intelligences services, know for a fact, that they were complicit in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post employee. The Post is own by Bezos and is a frequent burr under Trump's saddle. The Saudis are accused of being a player in this supposed influencing peddling saga that the SDNY is pursuing. Is there a connection?
So yes, there's nothing concrete to go on yet, at least nothing that we know of. But there's sure one heck of a lot of smoke swirling around Donald Trump. Like I said above, it's the tip of an iceberg. It's going to get worse for Trump before it gets better...a lot worse.
RiverDog wrote:I'm not sure we'll see the dots all connected into one center mass ala Watergate. IMO we'll see an assortment of connecting dots in multiple scandals that lead back to Trump...the hush money to the bimbos, the election interference with the Russians, the influence peddling with the Saudis, perhaps a few more. They're all serious charges, but they're not related, so it's going to be difficult to lump them all into one coherent, understandable, impeachment-worthy charge that's going to turn the middle of the road public opinion, and with them 20 R Senators, against Trump.
If all that plays out and the connected dots all lead back to Trump, I personally think that the cumulative effect is worthy of removing the POS from office based on general principles (one of my old man's favorite terms). I just don't agree with you in that it's going to be sufficient to do the trick.
RiverDog wrote:I'm not sure we'll see the dots all connected into one center mass ala Watergate. IMO we'll see an assortment of connecting dots in multiple scandals that lead back to Trump...the hush money to the bimbos, the election interference with the Russians, the influence peddling with the Saudis, perhaps a few more. They're all serious charges, but they're not related, so it's going to be difficult to lump them all into one coherent, understandable, impeachment-worthy charge that's going to turn the middle of the road public opinion, and with them 20 R Senators, against Trump.
If all that plays out and the connected dots all lead back to Trump, I personally think that the cumulative effect is worthy of removing the POS from office based on general principles (one of my old man's favorite terms). I just don't agree with you in that it's going to be sufficient to do the trick.
Aseahawkfan wrote:And how is this much different than most other candidates do? I'm still not getting it. I haven't seen a single story that goes above what other politicians have done over and over again including Bill Clinton or Reagan. Did you read on the wheeling and dealing by Reagan with the Iranians prior to taking office? I'm not quite getting what you're talking about. The only difference here seems to be the Republicans aren't as supportive of Trump as other candidates and aren't as aggressive in defeating the opposition.
If we're going to crawl up politicians asses, then we need to do all of them, not just pick a guy the parties hate and crawl up into him. From here on out, if you want to run for president you need in-depth investigations into your finances and everything you do just like Trump. With all the laws on the books, let's see who can withstand it and if they make a good president. Let's play games and waste money every time.
RiverDog wrote:I would assume that the incident you are referring to about Reagan's "wheeling and dealing" prior to taking office was the "October surprise", which was never proven. Both houses of Congress held separate investigations into the rumors and couldn't come up with anything tangible, a big nothing burger. Clinton had plenty of scandals beyond his most memorable one over which he got impeached for, but only Whitewater, which occurred before the election, did anyone go to jail over them. Trump's scandals all have to do with either his election or influence peddling as President or President-elect, and people are going to jail over them. That's the difference.
As I mentioned, Trump is unique to other politicians as he has not been vetted. Most others, for better or worse, are career politicians, either through their own assentation like Clinton or through their family ties like Bush. Their closets have already been pretty much been gone through before they even become a candidate and they are very conscious of the pitfalls associated with living in the fish bowl. Trump has never had to deal with such scrutiny, nor was his career fashioned with public office as an objective. I wouldn't be surprised if several other scandals pop up before these next two years are up.
Sports Hernia wrote:I know this post, like most political posts won’t change anyone’s mind which is why I hate posting in political threads, but let’s look at the facts.
The Mueller/SDNY has sure caught a lot of witches of late, all connected to Trump. Lots of indictments, arrests, and guilty pleas and the other shoe is yet to drop.
I hate Hillary Clinton with a passion but the Trey Gordy led Benghazi investigation found nothing over 2 years.
Also Mueller and Rosenstein are REPUBLICANS, like it or not.
Trump isn’t any kind of victim here, and is likely a Russian asset.
Don’t believe me either, watch it unfold.
Aseahawkfan wrote:If this isn't a partisan attack, I want you to explain to me how a Russian election tampering investigation turned into a complete and total attack on Trump's finances? You think that wasn't the target the entire time by the Democrats with their "hate the rich" base? Even you take shots at Trump for his wealth. Fact is this was always aimed at his finances, the real source of taking him down. The Russian collusion rubbish was just a way to inspect his finances.
Seriously, let's look at this evidence so far:
1. Trump paid off some women for what is chump change to him, but may have been done with campaign funds to keep it quiet or something.
Aseahawkfan wrote:2. This article is talking about some inauguration payments that may have been questionable. But nothing concrete once again.
Aseahawkfan wrote:3. There is some meeting with the Russians to give some dirt on the Hilary campaign. This is completely normal for campaigns as evidenced by Hilary Clinton purchasing intel from a foreign agent as well. This is literally business as usual. I haven't heard a peep from the media or the Dems concerning Hilary hiring a foreign agent likely using contacts in foreign governments to dig up dirt on Trump. Not a peep.
Aseahawkfan wrote:4. Russians interfered in the election with a social media campaign with misinformation. This happens from various sources all the time for nearly everything. If you're using social media as your information source, you're an idiot. You can't legislate against a person being an idiot, though I see them attempting it.
Aseahawkfan wrote:5. Former associates like Manafort, Gates, and Cohen brought up on charges for unrelated crimes from years ago. Some prior to their association with Trump.
Aseahawkfan wrote:6. Roger Stone: Brought in for questioning on some email charges that are not yet clear.
Aseahawkfan wrote:7. SDNY crawling up Trump's ass because the New York AG was pretty much looking for any reason to attack Trump because Democratic power runs New York like Michael Bloomberg.
Aseahawkfan wrote:So what else am I missing other than the voluminous speculations on Trump? How is this not a partisan attack?
Sports Hernia wrote:I know this post, like most political posts won’t change anyone’s mind which is why I hate posting in political threads, but let’s look at the facts.
The Mueller/SDNY has sure caught a lot of witches of late, all connected to Trump. Lots of indictments, arrests, and guilty pleas and the other shoe is yet to drop.
I hate Hillary Clinton with a passion but the Trey Gordy led Benghazi investigation found nothing over 2 years.
Also Mueller and Rosenstein are REPUBLICANS, like it or not.
Trump isn’t any kind of victim here, and is likely a Russian asset.
Don’t believe me either, watch it unfold.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I would assume that the incident you are referring to about Reagan's "wheeling and dealing" prior to taking office was the "October surprise", which was never proven. Both houses of Congress held separate investigations into the rumors and couldn't come up with anything tangible, a big nothing burger. Clinton had plenty of scandals beyond his most memorable one over which he got impeached for, but only Whitewater, which occurred before the election, did anyone go to jail over them. Trump's scandals all have to do with either his election or influence peddling as President or President-elect, and people are going to jail over them. That's the difference.
As I mentioned, Trump is unique to other politicians as he has not been vetted. Most others, for better or worse, are career politicians, either through their own assentation like Clinton or through their family ties like Bush. Their closets have already been pretty much been gone through before they even become a candidate and they are very conscious of the pitfalls associated with living in the fish bowl. Trump has never had to deal with such scrutiny, nor was his career fashioned with public office as an objective. I wouldn't be surprised if several other scandals pop up before these next two years are up.
What have they found? A bunch of corruption unrelated to Trump. Most of the indictments I see at the moment are from other crimes found. Paying out women? You really think if they checked politicians they wouldn't find a ton of that?
They are crawling up Trump's ass because both parties have people in them that don't like Trump. They are abusing the power of government to target one guy. All the charges I see pushed right now are mostly tied to charges outside of Trump. Most of the major charges from Russian associations long ago. Cohen was for some crime he was doing on his own. And tons of other crap that is getting dragged in the incredibly wide swath they put out there. You don't think other politicians would have the same?
Clinton avoided much of what was done because Janet Reno was a bulldog that shutdown investigations and supported the Clintons without question. Unfortunately for Trump he got Jeff Sessions, a black and white moralist doing what he thought was right. The Clintons got away with a ton they were never convicted of equal to everything I've seen Trump accused of. Not sure why you think that isn't the case. The fact is they held enough power in Washington to push everything off them. I'm betting they likely had blackmail on a lot of people to avoid the costs and Trump isn't getting the same support from his party for the reasons you stated: he's an outsider.
And the "October Surprise" found nothing? Yeah, right. You really believe that? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you in San Francisco. Reagan had the Bush's backing him, the ex-director of the CIA and one of the most powerful families in America. Of course no one one in Congress or any government agency is going to cross that. Give it a rest.
Fact is Trump isn't in with the Republican power base and is paying the price. If he were deeply ingrained with the Republican powers, things would be getting buried. His biggest problem is thinking he didn't have to play the game.
Hawktawk wrote:I know this post, like most political posts won’t change anyone’s mind which is why I hate posting in political threads, but let’s look at the facts.
The Mueller/SDNY has sure caught a lot of witches of late, all connected to Trump. Lots of indictments, arrests, and guilty pleas and the other shoe is yet to drop.
I hate Hillary Clinton with a passion but the Trey Gordy led Benghazi investigation found nothing over 2 years.
Also Mueller and Rosenstein are REPUBLICANS, like it or not.
Trump isn’t any kind of victim here, and is likely a Russian asset.
Don’t believe me either, watch it unfold.
Nice work sports hernia. Couldn't have said it better and I've tried lots of times.
Aseahawkfan wrote:
If this isn't a partisan attack, I want you to explain to me how a Russian election tampering investigation turned into a complete and total attack on Trump's finances? You think that wasn't the target the entire time by the Democrats with their "hate the rich" base? Even you take shots at Trump for his wealth. Fact is this was always aimed at his finances, the real source of taking him down. The Russian collusion rubbish was just a way to inspect his finances.
Seriously, let's look at this evidence so far:
1. Trump paid off some women for what is chump change to him, but may have been done with campaign funds to keep it quiet or something.
2. This article is talking about some inauguration payments that may have been questionable. But nothing concrete once again.
3. There is some meeting with the Russians to give some dirt on the Hilary campaign. This is completely normal for campaigns as evidenced by Hilary Clinton purchasing intel from a foreign agent as well. This is literally business as usual. I haven't heard a peep from the media or the Dems concerning Hilary hiring a foreign agent likely using contacts in foreign governments to dig up dirt on Trump. Not a peep.
4. Russians interfered in the election with a social media campaign with misinformation. This happens from various sources all the time for nearly everything. If you're using social media as your information source, you're an idiot. You can't legislate against a person being an idiot, though I see them attempting it.
5. Former associates like Manafort, Gates, and Cohen brought up on charges for unrelated crimes from years ago. Some prior to their association with Trump.
6. Roger Stone: Brought in for questioning on some email charges that are not yet clear.
7. SDNY crawling up Trump's ass because the New York AG was pretty much looking for any reason to attack Trump because Democratic power runs New York like Michael Bloomberg.
So what else am I missing other than the voluminous speculations on Trump? How is this not a partisan attack?
PS. Have you done your taxes yet? Your promised Trump “tax cut” is actually huge tax increase unless you are the 1% or are a major corporation. Again don’t believe me, look at your refund check / tax bill.
Sports Hernia wrote:
Nice work sports hernia. Couldn't have said it better and I've tried lots of times.
Thanks.
I could go on and on about things I hate about the Democratic Party as well and we wouldn’t have to go far (see state and local - Seattle politics). Taxing us to death thru sales taxes, license tabs, property taxes,’liquor taxes.....throwing taxpayer money at problems without thinking solutions thru, making laws trying to save people from themselves (soda tax etc etc), shrinking car lanes to make bike lanes etc etc.
I decided a long time ago not to get married to a politcal party.
I’ve never voted a straight party ticket until the last midterm election.
I’m hoping the Real deal GOP’ers save their party from the cancer of Trump, but im not sure their is enough of them left to do so.
PS. Have you done your taxes yet? Your promised Trump “tax cut” is actually huge tax increase unless you are the 1% or are a major corporation. Again don’t believe me, look at your refund check / tax bill.
c_hawkbob wrote:I have. My take home pay increased $12 a pay period when the new tax code went into effect, my tax return was $1400 less, even though I paid more in taxes.
idhawkman wrote:Well I'm glad to see that Cbob is one of the lucky people who won the U.S. lottery with a good job and that he's now helping others with more taxes to maybe win at life also.
c_hawkbob wrote:
I have no idea what that even means, but it sure seems pretty far off the mark.
idhawkman wrote:Well, it seems like a lot has gone on since I popped in here. Trump's approval rating is at its highest level since his inauguration and over 50% again. The democrats are all about investigating him but not moving any of the items they campaigned on forward. Trump is going to re-appropriate money to build the wall and the dems will get ZERO in concessions for it not even DACA. Its been discovered that Mueller when he was FBI director was hauled in front of the FISA court and admonished for over 75 cases of FISA abuse (as if we didn't already know this. The republicans are sending criminal referrals and demanding same justice for them as what Flynn and Cohen got to the FBI and DOJ later this month after the new AG is appointed for all the people who lied to congress including Hilliary and her merry band of misfits. TRUMP has been CLEARED of any Russian Collusion by the bi-partisan Senate.
Hawktawk wrote:If you don't believe me, watch what happens to Howard Shultz if he decides to run. It isn't democrat or republican, its insider vs. not invited.
RiverDog wrote:
The Republican controlled Senate didn't clear Trump of anything. What they said was that they have not found any evidence of collusion, but specifically noted that other evidence may arise. Like everyone else, the Senate is going to have to wait for Mueller to release his report.
RiverDog wrote:
The Republican controlled Senate didn't clear Trump of anything. What they said was that they have not found any evidence of collusion, but specifically noted that other evidence may arise. Like everyone else, the Senate is going to have to wait for Mueller to release his report.
idhawkman wrote:I think you are overlooking the fact that Mueller has the same information that the Senate has. Same witnesses, etc. The dems are seeing that they have lost the "RUSSIA" issue and will try and move on to something else. Mueller won't have anything an what he writes won't be about any wrong doing it will be just a narrative to try and lead someone to conclude something that isn't there. It won't work, but that's what it is.
RiverDog wrote:If Trump knew about it and that it was illegal, then it's not just some random campaign violation, it's a felony charge.
"Some" inauguration payments? The accusation is influence peddling, and one of those that might be involved is a government that you loathe, ie the Saudis. Of course, there's nothing concrete yet. It's a relatively new development, so let's wait and see.
Hillary isn't the POTUS, Trump is. I've often remarked that had Hillary been elected, she'd be up to her panties in some sort of scandal, which is why I didn't vote for her. But I'm not going to agree with you that conspiring with a hostile power (if proven) to influence an election is "business as usual". Besides, even if other pols, including HRC, did in the past what Trump is accused of, that doesn't justify Trump's behavior. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Agreed. Guess where Trump gets the majority of his information? It's no wonder how he can come up with such outlandish claims, his latest coming in the SOTU address about crime in El Paso, when the man spends more time on Twitter than he does with his own staff.
It's a common tactic used by prosecutors at all levels in order to force a reluctant witness to testify. Besides, a lot of the charges ARE directly related to Trump and/or the Trump campaign.
The charges are that he lied to Mueller's investigators. What's he hiding?
The reason why SDNY is the main investigative force (outside of Mueller) looking into Trump's activities is because that's where Trump did most of his business. His personal lawyer and long time fixer has already plead guilty to their charges involving campaign finance violations. Keep in mind that SDNY is part of the federal court system and not associated with the State of NY or their local politics. It is a part of Trump's own Justice Department.
Of course, a lot of it is partisan, I never said that it wasn't. But Bob Mueller is a man that before his appointment to special prosecutor, had impecable credentials and was well respected on both sides of the aisle. He is not a partisan hack. Trump has only himself to blame for his troubles. In his entire career, he's never had to worry about the type of scrutiny that goes with the territory of being a public official in an elective office.
A lot of people are anxious for Mueller to wrap up his investigation. But when he has witness after witness come before his team and lie their asses off to them, it throws them off track and causes them to spend more time to unravel their lies and get to the truth. If Trump's friends and associates were more cooperative and more honest, Mueller might have been finished with his report by now.
Aseahawkfan wrote:This entire episode is turning me off of politics. I literally feel hatred for both of these parties. I feel like they are screwing this country hard playing their games. And i for the first time in my life see no quality leadership to improve this country I can support. We are mired in the corruption born of trying to rule a world.
I literally feel hatred for both of these parties.
I will continue to listen to all serious candidates
burrrton wrote:Yeah, I've ruled out EH OH CEE, too. Embarrassing for pragmatic Dems.
Hawktawk wrote:And Id as for Trump being at 50% a few weeks after being at 36% get real. Rasmussen has become a joke and nobody else has the guy above mid 40%. The wacky dems are helping but hes never hitting 50% ever.
I will continue to listen to all serious candidates
burrrton wrote:Yeah, I've ruled out EH OH CEE, too. Embarrassing for pragmatic Dems.
Did you hear what AOC said yesterday after the news that Amazon was pulling out of their planned HQ2 in Long Island? She said that they could take that "$3B and use it for schools, etc". I couldn't believe my ears.
The $3B was approved tax exemptions that the various local and state governments were going to give Amazon as part of a package of incentives. It's not money that the governments were going to spend on Amazon.
Is she really that stupid?
Did you hear what AOC said yesterday after the news that Amazon was pulling out of their planned HQ2 in Long Island? She said that they could take that "$3B and use it for schools, etc". I couldn't believe my ears.
The $3B was approved tax exemptions that the various local and state governments were going to give Amazon as part of a package of incentives. It's not money that the governments were going to spend on Amazon.
Is she really that stupid?
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I guess that's an honest mistake, barely. It sounds like she's thinking like the locals down here. They voted to take away some of Exxon's tax breaks giving the local government an addition 2-3 million dollars to work with. The big difference is Exxon is established and doing business here. Amazon hadn't established themselves in NY, and, therefore, paying zero taxes there, so, yeah, wth is she talking about?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests