6
0

Still not a scrap of evidence on Russia. Why does anyone even listen to NPR anymore?


 invite response                
2017 Sep 10, 10:45am   11,082 views  44 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

The latest spin on “Russia stole the election” is that Russia used Facebook to influence the election. The NPR women yesterday were breathless about it.

We have been subjected to ten months of propaganda about Trump/Putin election interference and still not a scrap of evidence. It is past time to ask an unasked question: If there were evidence, what is the big deal? All sorts of interest groups try to influence election outcomes including foreign governments. Why is it OK for Israel to influence US elections but not for Russia to do so? Why do you think the armament industry, the energy industry, agribusiness, Wall Street and the banks, pharmaceutical companies, etc., etc., supply the huge sum of money to finance election campaigns if their intent is not to influence the election? Why do editorial boards write editorials endorsing one candidate and damning another if they are not influencing the election?

What is the difference between influencing the election and influencing the government? Washington is full of lobbyists of all descriptions, including lobbyists for foreign governments, working round the clock to influence the US government. It is safe to say that the least represented in the government are the citizens themselves who don’t have any lobbyists working for them.


#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 44       Last »     Search these comments

1   komputodo   2017 Sep 10, 10:53am  

I read that article too...Do the idiots pushing this line realize how impotent this makes an alleged “superpower” look. How can we be the hegemonic power that the "sheeple" say we are when Russia can decide who is the president of the United States?

The US has a massive spy state that even intercepts the private cell phone conversations of the Chancellor of Germany, but his massive spy organization is unable to produce one scrap of evidence that the Russians conspired with Trump to steal the presidential election from Hillary. When will the imbeciles realize that when they make charges for which no evidence can be produced they make the United States look silly, foolish, incompetent, stupid beyond all belief?
2   joeyjojojunior   2017 Sep 10, 11:39am  

No offense, but there is a mountain of evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

I'm all for campaign finance reform, however. Let's taking the money out of elections and do it now.
3   Patrick   2017 Sep 10, 11:43am  

Even completely irrational beliefs are unshakable if the alternative is the pain of feeling bad about yourself, or crediting your enemy with being right.

And the more they talk about Russia, they less they have to talk about, say, Saudi Arabia:

https://www.infowars.com/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-of-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims/
Yes, it's infowars.com, but they seem to have some legit documents on that page.
4   joeyjojojunior   2017 Sep 10, 11:51am  

rando says
Even completely irrational beliefs are unshakable if the alternative is the pain of feeling bad about yourself, or crediting your enemy with being right.


Exactly!
5   komputodo   2017 Sep 10, 12:04pm  

joeyjojojunior says
No offense, but there is a mountain of evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

I didn't choose, the person that wrote the article chose.
6   joeyjojojunior   2017 Sep 10, 12:12pm  

komputodo says
I didn't choose, the person that wrote the article chose.


I was responding to Patrick's title of this thread, but to which article do you refer? The authors of the article were ignoring the evidence?
7   anonymous   2017 Sep 10, 3:23pm  

I listen to NPR in my car, several times a day, and have not heard any mention of Russia in recent weeks. But if I did, I would think it's okay. It's a valid topic. If they did attempt to influence the last election, I think the press is doing it's job by exploring that.

I can see how those who are happy that Trump was elected are made very uncomfortable by the suggestion that maybe he wouldn't have won without the influence of Russia.

I can also see the left wing point of view on it, maybe wanting to blame Russia or wanting to connect him in a conspiracy.

A neutral observer would think it's reasonable topic to explore, and they would also realize that exhausting the topic is good for Trump, that is if in the end there is no evidence implicating him to a conspiracy with Russia.

Trump should never have publicly dared Russia to publish info from Hillary's email server. But then he never was all that bright.
8   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 10, 3:36pm  

Influencing the Election isn't illegal.

Current German PM Merkel also influenced the elections, as did ex PM of UK Tony Blair. Obama tried to influence Brexit. The US interferes in all kinds of elections. It even has the official ambassador and assistant secretary of state literally hand out cookies to those protesting an elected government.

And spending a few thousand on Facebook for a National Election is jive turkey chump change. Qatar spends more than that on a minor department of a small private college's Middle East department, much less an election. Saudi Arabia spends millions influencing US politics.
9   komputodo   2017 Sep 10, 4:28pm  

null says
I can see how those who are happy that Trump was elected are made very uncomfortable by the suggestion that maybe he wouldn't have won without the influence of Russia.


Those who are happy that Trump was elected are just happy. They aren't thinking about the MSM conspiracy theories. Those theories are just for comforting butt hurt hillary supporters and selling ad space.
10   anonymous   2017 Sep 10, 7:37pm  

joeyjojojunior says
No offense, but there is a mountain of evidence. You just choose to ignore it.


There is, where is it? Please post the evidence (I know you won't).
11   anonymous   2017 Sep 10, 7:37pm  

null says
Trump should never have publicly dared Russia to publish info from Hillary's email server.


How do you connect Trump daring Russian to publish Hillary's emails with Trump colluding with Russia?
12   bob2356   2017 Sep 10, 7:57pm  

Patrick says
The latest spin on “Russia stole the election”


Russia stole the election is your spin. What is being investigated is if campaign laws were broken. If you are so sure there is not evidence then you should have no objection of any kind in letting the investigators finish the job.
13   Patrick   2017 Sep 10, 8:09pm  

So why is there no investigation of Saudi Arabia?
14   HEY YOU   2017 Sep 10, 8:48pm  

Russia could be innocent,if they are guilty,how much did they affect the election.
Did they change enough votes to change the outcome of the Electoral College?

The investigation might lead to tax & financial felonies of the Trump family & associates.
15   anonymous   2017 Sep 10, 9:17pm  

IF the establishment thinks he's stupid and dangerous then he must be good. Really Patrick ? That's what you call a decent argument in favor of Trump ?
16   Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 7:26am  

Patrick says
Still not a scrap of evidence on Russia. Why does anyone even listen to NPR anymore?


West coast NPR sucks, but east coast NPR is good.

As for the Russia scandal, there is a lot of reason to believe that there are serious and dangerous connections between Trump and Putin. Here's what we, the public, do know.

1. The Russian government broken into the DNC headquarters' computers and published technically legal, but very fraudulent and unethical dealings of the DNC in sabotaging Sanders's campaign. This act is fine, as it's perfectly fair for Russia to influence the election and to whistleblow even if their intentions are not good.

2. The Russian government attempted to hack into voting machines. This is not acceptable.

3. Trump and the Russian government have had many contacts that were lied about.

4. Trump's family members and campaign workers had many contacts with the Russian government that were lied about.

The rest is speculation. However, the FBI and CIA may have other information and evidence that they are not disclosing to the public yet because they are still investigating the situation.

In any case, it is more than reasonable for news outlets to be reporting on this. I don't think that such reporting justifies a legitimate complaint against NPR or any other news agency. If Obama were the president with such suspected connections to Russia, I'm pretty sure that 1A, the show that replaced the Diane Rehm show, would be reporting on it.
17   HEY YOU   2017 Sep 11, 8:08am  

Has anyone talked to or seen Mueller's evidence,today?
I always speculate without all the facts.
18   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 11, 10:11am  

Dan8267 says
1. The Russian government broken into the DNC headquarters' computers and published technically legal, but very fraudulent and unethical dealings of the DNC in sabotaging Sanders's campaign. This act is fine, as it's perfectly fair for Russia to influence the election and to whistleblow even if their intentions are not good.


Broken into or hacked? It's very possible this was a LEAK. Could be Seth Rich, or the Awan Brothers sold it to Russian Intel.

Only Crowdstrike, a government contractor hired by the Democrats, has ever seen the email server. The Democrats probably know it's NOT Russia, or they would have handed over the server to the FBI and danced around yelling "NOBODY could have prevented this sophisticated FSB attack. We MUST have better cyber defense. We're the victims, boo hoo, Here is the Proof! Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is beside herself with Grief, send Putin to the Tree of Woe!"

And yes, I can make the FBI knows more than it's saying argument about the Awan Brothers and Seth Rich, also.

Whoever did it should get the Pulitzer Prize for realing unbelievable corruption iin the DNC where TWO (2) Chairs resigned within weeks of each other, during a Presidential Campaign, both over flat out fucking lying and skuldruggery. THAT should have been the story of 2016.

And the followup lawsuit by Bernie Supporters where the DNC argued they had no contractual obligation to be impartial, could ignore primary/caucus results, and could and did anoint Candidates in backroom deals. The media completely ignored this stunning self-admission.
19   mell   2017 Sep 11, 10:27am  

TDS still keeps running deep. Another thing many overlook is Trumps choice for VP which was excellent. Pence is by any means a statesman, and he bolsters Trumps presidency whenever DT needs it by being the more level-headed, statesman-like, diplomatic part of the presidency, yet with - so far - unwavering support for the Captain. It has become clear over the past months that not only - like Patrick mentioned - Trump showed yuge balls navigating through the relentless attacks, but also that the mainstream/left has greatly underestimated his street-smarts. I maintain that by half-time the impeachment bs will have mostly subsided and after 4 years DTs presidency will be looked upon much more favorably.
20   Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 10:28am  

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Broken into or hacked? It's very possible this was a LEAK. Could be Seth Rich, or the Awan Brothers sold it to Russian Intel.


I'm ok if they even broke into it. Although it does technically violate the law, I say whistle blowing trumps the law especially on stuff this important. And yes, even if Russia's intentions are bad, the whistleblowing is good because the people have the right to know when politicians are violating the public's trust and rigging the elections.

That said, it seems the Russian government hacked into the machines and attempted to hack into other machines including voting machines. Hacking into voting machines is a serious issue and has nothing to do with whistleblowing.

TwoScoopsMcGee says
And the followup lawsuit by Bernie Supporters where the DNC argued they had no contractual obligation to be impartial, could ignore primary/caucus results, and could and did anoint Candidates in backroom deals.


And this is ultimately why they lost the election as I showed in the thread It's official, the DNC lost the election because they screwed over Bernie supporters.

As bad as Trump is, I'm glad he was elected instead of Hillary. As I stated in Why you should vote for someone who will lose this election, the political machinery is more important than the politicians and accepting the machinery that was trying to put Hillary in office at all costs was simply not acceptable.

Nonetheless, none of this stuff diminishes the significance of a sitting U.S. president being compromised by Russia. The intelligence community is going batshit over this and rightfully so.
21   mell   2017 Sep 11, 10:39am  

Dan8267 says
Nonetheless, none of this stuff diminishes the significance of a sitting U.S. president being compromised by Russia. The intelligence community is going batshit over this and rightfully so.


There's the issue: The time has been long overdue to embrace Russia as a friend rather than an enemy. With great relations between those two powers so much could be done fixing all the conflicts in the world via a unified stance. With Europe bettering trade relations with Russia trade would flourish being a huge net positive for both sides. It's funny how people claim Alex Jones is a tinfoil hat nutjob, yet many of those still cling to the - probably more tinfoil hatter - decade old cold war conspiracy theory of Russia constantly plotting to destroy the US. Is there rivalry? Of course there is. Should there be blind trust? No. But anybody who thinks Russia poses any immediate military threat to the US since glasnost and perestroika has no business to call Jones crazy. I was in school when the wall came down and Gorbachev and Yeltsin ushered in a new era. Fucking Scorpions were singing wind of change and people had regained their optimism of a unified western world that would stretch as far as Russia. Giving up the iron curtain was a great act on their side. I have many friends who travel to Russia frequently and they say there's not much difference between Russians and Europeans. And here we are imposing sanctions because of computer hackers. Cmon.
22   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 11, 10:43am  

Dan8267 says
Nonetheless, none of this stuff diminishes the significance of a sitting U.S. president being compromised by Russia. The intelligence community is going batshit over this and rightfully so.


This is the part for which there is no actual evidence.

The Oligarchs hate him, the media hates him, the Deep State hates him, all this time and money and still nothing to connect him to Russia. Which reminds me, the story has changed from "Trump lied about Russian Business Connections" to "Putin put Trump in the White House" and is now being downgraded to "Russia influenced the Election (Like everybody else does)"

The big lie technique is to keep repeating an assertion over and over again until it becomes "everybody knows that."

The "FBI/CIA/ETC Knows" is also used to explain the Holograms of Planes hitting the tower, we need evidence. Even Obama said that none of the Very Serious People can hack a national election, so we're going to need very Serious Proof.
23   Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 11:05am  

mell says
The time has been long overdue to embrace Russia as a friend rather than an enemy.


The time to do that was before Putin. Putin has made Russia worse.

Yes we should try to thaw relations as much as possible, but we should not trust them and we should guard our voting machines from being hacked by them. And we should definitely be cautious about Trump being compromised by them.
24   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 11, 11:26am  

Dan8267 says
There is zero chance of Trump going to prison. No high ranking politician in the U.S. has ever gone to prison or even been convicted of a crime. Evidence is irrelevant. Politicians have an unwritten rule that no high ranking politician will ever be treated like a commoner and will never be subject to being caged like a commoner.


:Process" "Rule of Law"
25   Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 12:45pm  

mell says

So do you think the - sometimes extremely hateful and aggressive - rhetoric against Trump by many politicians is just political theater?


Plenty of people believed Obama could do no good because he was a nigger Democrat. Many Republicans voted against his policies even when his policies where literally the Republican policies from a few years ago. Plenty of right-wing conservatives accused Obama of ridiculous things like being a secret Muslim and hating America simply because he was a black Democrat.

Despite all this fake outrage at Obama, there were plenty of bad things Obama did. One could criticize Obama extensively for those bad things which has nothing to do with the fake outrage by racist conservative rightwingers.

By the exact same token, any reasonable person would criticize Trump for a plethora of legitimate problems, and such criticism would have nothing to do with the fake outrage by social justice warrior conservative leftwingers who hate Trump because of what they think he symbolizes.

Tell me, are you really so foolish as to think Trump is a good president? Seriously?

mell says
Well then you should get your impeachment soon.. Or not if there's no evidence.


Your analysis is completely wrong. No entity can self-police, especially not the government. Impeachments don't happen or fail to happen because of legal right and wrong. They happen or don't because of politics and nothing more.

We don't know how much Trump is entangled with Russia, but only an idiot thinks Trump is not at all entangled.
26   Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 12:45pm  

TwoScoopsMcGee says
:Process" "Rule of Law"


?
27   mell   2017 Sep 11, 12:52pm  

Dan8267 says
Plenty of people believed Obama could do no good because he was a nigger Democrat. Many Republicans voted against his policies even when his policies where literally the Republican policies from a few years ago. Plenty of right-wing conservatives accused Obama of ridiculous things like being a secret Muslim and hating America simply because he was a black Democrat.

Despite all this fake outrage at Obama, there were plenty of bad things Obama did. One could criticize Obama extensively for those bad things which has nothing to do with the fake outrage by racist conservative rightwingers.

By the exact same token, any reasonable person would criticize Trump for a plethora of legitimate problems, and such criticism would have nothing to do with the fake outrage by social justice warrior conservative leftwingers who hate Trump because of what they think he symbolizes.

Tell me, are you really so foolish as to think Trump is a good president? Seriously?


I think he is better than HRC, but he wasn't my favorite candidate. However the question was with so many Dems calling for impeachment (Maxine Waters etc.) and pretty much 90% of the media against him why would you think he cannot be impeached? Is it just political theater by his opponents? Obama was never attacked like Trump was although I agree many attacks were ludicrous. I consider him a better president than W though I certainly didn't like his presidency.

Dan8267 says
Your analysis is completely wrong. No entity can self-police, especially not the government. Impeachments don't happen or fail to happen because of legal right and wrong. They happen or don't because of politics and nothing more.

We don't know how much Trump is entangled with Russia, but only an idiot thinks Trump is not at all entangled.


That sort of answers the above question mostly. I think if they had anything serious on him they would have started long ago. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a bj, why should Trump, who has pretty much everybody against him (it seems) get away by bending the rule of law?
28   Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 2:15pm  

mell says
However the question was with so many Dems calling for impeachment (Maxine Waters etc.) and pretty much 90% of the media against him why would you think he cannot be impeached?


1. I don't think he cannot be impeached. I think he won't spend a day in prison because he is a high ranking politician.
2. Only a single Democrat has actually called for Trump's impeachment. That's hardly "so many". His reason was that Trump obstructed justice by interfering with the ongoing federal investigation into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.
3. It's irrelevant if the Democrats want to impeach Trump. Only the Republicans can actually impeach them since they have the majority in House. Impeachment requires a majority support in the House of Representatives, and actually removing the president from office requires two-thirds approval in the Senate. The Republicans control both chambers and so only they can actually impeach Trump or later remove Trump from office.

mell says
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a bj


Bill Clinton was impeached for being an effective president. His impeachment was purely political. He absolutely did not lie under oath. That is a complete falsehood.

Bill Clinton simply answered the question that was asked of him and did not volunteer any further information. The Republicans fucked up by not asking what they wanted to ask. They did not ask if Clinton was fellated by Monica Lewinsky. They asked if Clinton had sexual intercourse with Lewinsky. Big fucking difference. It's not Clinton's fault that dumb ass Republicans don't even know the right euphemisms for sexual acts. Sexual "relations" means intercourse, not fellatio. Hell, I knew that since the fifth grade.

By the way, there is no legitimate reason to ask a president if he had fellatio with a consenting woman. None whatsoever. The entire thing was a trap. The Trump Russian scandal is entirely different. No one trapped Trump into being compromised by Russia, and it's a national security issue. Bill Clinton's dick isn't a national security issue.

mell says
Trump, who has pretty much everybody against him


Oh yes, because conservative media never wrongfully attacked President Blackie McBlackass. They never tried to make him look bad.
29   mell   2017 Sep 11, 2:44pm  

Dan8267 says
2. Only a single Democrat has actually called for Trump's impeachment. That's hardly "so many".


You may want to research this again, I count at least 3 (Speier, Moore, Green).


Dan8267 says
Bill Clinton was impeached for being an effective president. His impeachment was purely political. He absolutely did not lie under oath. That is a complete falsehood.


That was the narrative. How is this different than saying the narrative against trump is a falsehood? I didn't think it was necessary at that time but it was to show an example that impeachments do happen if there is evidence. True the Repubs are in control, but some were close to defecting. But since no evidence was provided, they didn't have to fear to be on the wrong side and suddenly got silent. But you can't say they are as tight-nit as Dems were during Obama.Dan8267 says
Oh yes, because conservative media never wrongfully attacked President Blackie McBlackass. They never tried to make him look bad.


They did, but I'd say it pales compared to the Trump firestorm.
30   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 11, 2:45pm  

Dan8267 says
?


I'm in favor of "(Legal) Process" and "Rule of Law", as you advocate with your notice that politicians get no time.

Who knows, maybe we'll see Rx Menendez get some time. I want a special prosecutor to look into his motive for trying to prevent/water down the Medicare Fraud Investigation.

It would be nice if we enforced the law and had "process" onoging for immigration law violators, also.
31   anonymous   2017 Sep 11, 5:36pm  

Dan8267 says
1. The Russian government broken into the DNC headquarters' computers


This has been proven to be an absolute lie, due to transfer speeds. Metadata has shown the email files were copied to a flash drive DIRECTLY from the servers inside the DNC. There's zero evidence the data was hacked from a remote location. This is why the DNC won't let the FBI look at their computers.
32   FortWayne   2017 Sep 11, 5:48pm  

If there was something it would be found by now. But the only thing we have is left wing conspiracy theories.
33   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2017 Sep 12, 12:12pm  

I listen to NPR just so I know how low Liberals are willing to go next.
34   Ceffer   2017 Sep 12, 12:16pm  

All countries work hard to influence the internal affairs of other countries and disrupt them. Computers are just another avenue. Get used to it.

The USA has been finger fucking foreign sovereignties since it's inception, stop with the righteousness, already.
35   Dan8267   2017 Sep 13, 8:21am  

mell says
Dan8267 says
2. Only a single Democrat has actually called for Trump's impeachment. That's hardly "so many".


You may want to research this again, I count at least 3 (Speier, Moore, Green).


I might be wrong on this, but to clarify what I meant, as far as I know only one Democrat has actually called for a vote on impeachment, which is all that matters. Tweeting about impeachment does not count. I think you and I might be talking about different things.

Tweeting and talking about impeachment is just bullshit political rhetoric. The Republicans engaged in that every single day during the Obama administration. The did not, however, call for a vote to impeach the Obama.

Again, I might be wrong about this, but the last time I checked only one Democrat actually called for impeachment in a Congressional session.

mell says
How is this different than saying the narrative against trump is a falsehood?


It is absolutely certain that Trump obstructed justice -- hell, he admitted to that on television -- and that alone is an impeachable offense. It is also absolutely known that Trump and his campaign officials had many Russian contacts that they lied about under oath. That is also impeachable. What isn't know is how strong those contacts are, and how much influence the Russians have over the Trump administration. However, this is clearly a national security issue whereas Bill Clinton's dick is not.

mell says
But since no evidence was provided


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/13/15952212/trump-russia-investigation-evidence http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/14/media/charles-krauthammer-donald-trump-jr-collusion/index.html
mell says
They did, but I'd say it pales compared to the Trump firestorm.


You're only saying that because this time it's your team being attacked. There is at least legitimacy to attacking Trump on Russia. I say this as someone who advocated strongly against Hillary being elected. Any impartial person will acknowledge that the Trump scandal is a real one and a grave national security concern.

anonymous says
Dan8267 says
1. The Russian government broken into the DNC headquarters' computers


This has been proven to be an absolute lie, due to transfer speeds. Metadata has shown the email files were copied to a flash drive DIRECTLY from the servers inside the DNC. There's zero evidence the data was hacked from a remote location. This is why the DNC won't let the FBI look at their computers.


That would still constitute breaking into computers. Any unauthorized access does regardless of how it's done.
36   mell   2017 Sep 13, 9:46am  

Dan8267 says
You're only saying that because this time it's your team being attacked. There is at least legitimacy to attacking Trump on Russia. I say this as someone who advocated strongly against Hillary being elected. Any impartial person will acknowledge that the Trump scandal is a real one and a grave national security concern.


My team was Rand Paul, in fact I actively donated for a while. I do have a personal (and logical) interest in good relation with Russia, but - aside - from meetings I see no evidence of any sort of deal. And meetings are not prosecution worthy or impeachable. At some time the lamestream media purported a story where Trump "might" have stayed in some hotel and engaged in golden showers. WTF? This is worse than the Clinton BJ coverage. What it seems like is that Trump was forced to give up on good relations with Russia and back the sanctions and mild saber-rattling by the deep state. Part of the push-pull game.
37   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 13, 11:41am  

Dan8267 says
That would still constitute breaking into computers. Any unauthorized access does regardless of how it's done.


That could mean somebody on the inside - Rich, the Awan Brothers, etc. - got the info and then passed it on or sold it. An inside job, which makes the Dems look even weaker on CyberSecurity after the Clinton Email Server and Podesta's Moron P@ssw0rd
38   anonymous   2017 Sep 13, 12:08pm  

Dan8267 says
That would still constitute breaking into computers. Any unauthorized access does regardless of how it's done.


But the OP was about Russia. Facts have shown it wasn't Russia that broke into the DNC computers. Time for you liberals to find another boogieman.
39   Dan8267   2017 Sep 13, 12:13pm  

TwoScoopsMcGee says

That could mean somebody on the inside - Rich, the Awan Brothers, etc. - got the info and then passed it on or sold it.


Perhaps, it's conjecture. However, it's irrelevant.

It is not bad that the Russians broken into DNC computers, copied data, and released it to the public. Regardless of their intentions, the people have the right to know what shady backroom deals the politicians are doing. Anyone who bitches about the DNC's shady dealings being exposed is saying "fuck the people, they don't have the right to know what politicians are actually doing". That's a very weak case to make.

However, the issue of Russia trying to hack into election machines is a very serious issue. And that's not in the best interest of the American public, and it is a national security issue.

Furthermore, the argument for impeaching Trump has nothing to do with either of these issues. There are three independent legitimate arguments to impeach Trump whether or not their is sufficient evidence to remove him from office, which is something only a trial would reveal.
1. Trump obstructed justice by interfering with an FBI investigation. This is a cold, hard fact.
2. Trump and his campaign perjured about ties to Russia and meeting Russian government officials. This is also a cold, hard fact.
3. Trump may be compromised by blackmail and/or business deals with the Russian government or government officials.

Each of these is a serious matter. The only one that is questionable is the third, but the suspicion is certainly reasonable and the consequences dire.
40   Shaman   2017 Sep 13, 6:27pm  

Dan8267 says

1. Trump obstructed justice by interfering with an FBI investigation. This is a cold, hard fact.
2. Trump and his campaign perjured about ties to Russia and meeting Russian government officials. This is also a cold, hard fact.
3. Trump may be compromised by blackmail and/or business deals with the Russian government or government officials.

Each of these is a serious matter. The only one that is questionable is the third, but the suspicion is certainly reasonable and the consequences dire.


1. Interfering with an FBI investigation? Cmon that's ridiculous. If you want to say that firing the director counts, then you'd have to charge Trump with interfering with every one of the doubtless thousands of investigations ongoing at the time. Which is ridiculous. This kind of charge is a nebulous catch-all they like to tack onto something more serious, but is ridiculously tough to prove by itself.

2. I'm not aware of ANY perjury by Trump or his campaign, on any subject. Reminding you of course, that one is only able to commit perjury while under oath by a court or congress. Lying in any other context is not perjury. So even if you parse everyone's spoken words for lies about Russia, you still won't have a legal leg to stand on!

3. Yes, but his arm is crooked in that picture so it's fake!

Could you BE any more grandiose and wrong at the same time? It's a high bar.

Comments 1 - 40 of 44       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions