0
0

Today Trump Became President ... again


 invite response                
2017 Oct 30, 11:49pm   18,880 views  66 comments

by Rew   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

#TrumpIsPresident #LizardsForTrump

The 4:37am tweet, before the charges were leveled, and all was made known, was very presidential. Classic. :)



In light of the indictment, and especially the plea, here is what I think some of the sharpest analysis has been so far, and what we can expect to watch in messaging.

Mueller & Team:

They sent a clear message today that there are two roads. The road of non-compliance is a path to indictment and every charge they can find (Manafort). This is the path of pain. The road Papadopoulos chose, via plea deals, leads to light sentencing and much more favorable personal outcomes. The plea deal is by far more significant in many ways as well. It's also interesting that Manafort is a much larger fish than many predicted be an initial charge in something like this. He is very well known. The charges are not collusion, but corruption. Contrast that with Papadopoulos, a low ranking nobody, errand boy, who sang like a canary and is on the Russian collusion track. Mueller is signaling "I think these are connected, and given time, I will connect the dots." Also, if someone like Papadopoulos is dirty, there must be a lot to find in camp Trump. High, low, and everywhere in between it seems like corruption oozes forth from that administration.

Then there are things like this ...
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/george-papadopoulos-lied-to-fbi-agents-the-same-day-trump-asked-comey-for-loyalty-pledge/ ... which you just have to chalk up to coincidence, or realize, "Oh, Trump wasn't asking Comey for the pledge of loyalty. It was Pap' all along."

We have a President who fired Comey, is Pro-Russia without a pro-stance on virtually any other country, begrudgingly enforced Russian sanctions because he was forced to, walked away from the Ukraine day 1, his son Jr.'s meeting ... I mean, look ... we don't even NEED hard evidence of collusion. The politics just have to line up enough and Trump is gone. The GOP is counting the favorability ratings, watching the dumpster fire, and waiting for their chance ... and you can see it ...

Watch the messaging close this week:

GOP: The majority will be silent on the indictment and plea. That's significant as that means they are not supporting Trump. Again, they are waiting to see if they can bury him.

"The Base" & Right Wing Media: pretty quiet today as they circled the wagons. I expect a lot more crazy like the "Mueller will charge Hillary" stuff. It is getting beyond tin-foil hat now. Mueller might get a few more smear campaigns against him from this arm as well.

Edit: Nice one from today ...
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/10/31/alex-jones-there-plot-install-robert-mueller-first-king-america/218401

Trump Administration: spin spin spin. It's going to be about getting distance, "Mana-who?". Above all, you will see, "But that isn't about the President. The President isn't charged. That's not collusion."

Dems/Libs/Resistance: smiles, laughing, and looking to stick the dagger in where they can. No real movement on the political scale or investigative track will be had here. This will be inconsequential, like the Trump administration's reaction and actions.

Longer Term:

Trump's multi-dimensional always one step ahead chess (snicker) is getting very simplistic now: is there more embarrassment and pain if I stay or if I go? Can I fire Mueller, as the ultimate gambit? Will the GOP and public call me on it? Can I protect my family more?

I expect more fun in 3-6 months here from Mueller and crew. I also think if Jr. gets near the sights it is game over for Trump. He will quit.

Comments 1 - 40 of 66       Last »     Search these comments

1   curious2   2017 Oct 31, 12:41am  

Rew says
He will


...pardon. FTFY.

Read your Constitution:

The President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe the President would quit if his family were threatened. He would much more likely pardon his family, and counter-attack against his opponents. He might even pardon Manafort.
2   CBOEtrader   2017 Oct 31, 1:37am  

Rew says
High, low, and everywhere in between it seems like corruption oozes forth from that administration.


Every word of that statement is a lie.

Manaforts corruption is all in regards to his swamp behavior from many years before his 9 weeks working on Trumps campaign.

The Pap kid played a minor role in the campaign and wasn't indicted for corruption.

Neither of these tards are part of trumps administration, nor are their crimes in any way related to the Trump administration.
3   MrMagic   2017 Oct 31, 7:34am  

Rew says
Trump's multi-dimensional always one step ahead chess (snicker) is getting very simplistic now:


TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS
TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS
TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS
4   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Oct 31, 8:11am  

CBOEtrader says
Manaforts corruption is all in regards to his swamp behavior from many years before his 9 weeks working on Trumps campaign.

The money laundering extended through 2016, which was when he was campaign manager. The lies and false statements continued through 2017 (page 18). He also was avoiding taxes during that time by filing false tax returns. That activity would be to date, presumably. He was fraudulently applying for a mortgage during early 2016, about the time he was working with Trump. On page 23, it states that he is charged with conspiring against the United States from 2006 through 2017. Manafort pushed 75 million through those accounts and spent 18 million on himself. That's Clinton fund money without any of the charitable work. It appears that most of the money came from a pro Russia party in the Ukraine.

The indictment is here.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/30/us/politics/document-paul-manafort-rick-gates-indictment.html
Just because Trump says this all took place long before Manafort worked for his campaign doesn't mean that it didn't also take place during that time.
5   MrMagic   2017 Oct 31, 8:53am  

YesYNot says
he lies and false statements continued through 2017 (page 18). He also was avoiding taxes during that time by filing false tax returns. That activity would be to date, presumably. He was fraudulently applying for a mortgage during early 2016, about the time he was working with Trump. On page 23, it states that he is charged with conspiring against the United States from 2006 through 2017. Manafort pushed 75 million through those accounts and spent 18 million on himself.


And that, how, implicates Trump and Trump's campaign? What Manafort does with HIS own money and personal finances is HIS business, considering the bulk of that was BEFORE Trump even announced he was running.
6   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Oct 31, 8:54am  

PCGyver says
Triggered much?
Every minute of every day.
7   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Oct 31, 8:56am  

Sniper says
And that, how, implicates Trump and Trump's campaign?

It doesn't really. It just shows Trump's tweet about it to be a lie, and it shows that all of Trump's supporters who mindlessly repeat the lie are useful pawns.
8   anonymous   2017 Oct 31, 9:02am  

YesYNot says
Sniper says
And that, how, implicates Trump and Trump's campaign?

It doesn't really. It just shows Trump's tweet about it to be a lie, and it shows that all of Trump's supporters who mindlessly repeat the lie are useful pawns.


I believe Patrick considers these types of truths to be uncivil
9   lostand confused   2017 Oct 31, 9:08am  

This is getting interesting. Gloves off.
10   anonymous   2017 Oct 31, 9:08am  

Trump is indistinguishable from any other Republican at this point, so I can see why Christians support him so strongly.

So it begs the question, why do Trump/Republicans /Christians hate America and our Constitution?
11   CBOEtrader   2017 Oct 31, 9:10am  

errc says
YesYNot says
Sniper says
And that, how, implicates Trump and Trump's campaign?

It doesn't really. It just shows Trump's tweet about it to be a lie, and it shows that all of Trump's supporters who mindlessly repeat the lie are useful pawns.


I believe Patrick considers these types of truths to be uncivil


Uncivil? no. but this is the type of BS that degenerates the conversation, over and over and over again. Be better
12   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Oct 31, 9:16am  

CBOEtrader says
Uncivil? no. but this is the type of BS that degenerates the conversation, over and over and over again. Be better

I think it is accurate. Look at the indictment. Look at the dates. This was ongoing through the time he was at the Trump campaign. IMO, people who repeat Trumps lie without checking them out are mindlessly repeating them. I saw what the left and right were saying, so I just looked it up. It took 5 minutes.
13   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Oct 31, 9:17am  

lostand confused says
This is getting interesting. Gloves off.

Do pigs wear gloves?

No that would be uncivil if I specified who I was calling a pig.
14   CBOEtrader   2017 Oct 31, 9:20am  

YesYNot says
I saw what the left and right were saying, so I just looked it up.


Ofc he was LYING recently. That doesn't change the fact that his theft and corruption were from years prior. OFC he was laundering the $75 million he stole recently. You cant just plop that into a BoA account.

This doesn't change the fundamental truth that his (known) corruption crimes are from years earlier. It has nothing to do with Trump, or his 9 weeks working with the campaign.

You are being pedantic in that I didn't fully explain every caveat in a fricken forum post, and you are using that to degenerate the conversation like a troll. Be better.
15   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Oct 31, 9:45am  

CBOEtrader says
This doesn't change the fundamental truth that his (known) corruption crimes are from years earlier. It has nothing to do with Trump, or his 9 weeks working with the campaign.

Sure it does. He was offering to update his Russian colleagues during the campaign and trying to figure out how best to monetize his position. That wasn't in the indictment, but that doesn't mean that Manafort has changed his stripes. Do you seriously think that Manafort had reformed and was no longer up to no good? He was hiding money from the US and not reporting that money on relevant forms. Those forms are specifically to show that you don't have a conflict of interest / are not working as or for a foreign agent. Those were ongoing crimes, and cannot be dismissed as having a colorful past. I don't think that's pedantic at all. It gets to the meat of the matter. Who was Manfort working for? Getting to the central point is not troll-like. It moves the conversation forward. Repeatedly posting half-truth talking points does not.
16   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Oct 31, 10:12am  

Rew says
Papadopoulos, a low ranking nobody, errand boy, who sang like a canary and is on the Russian collusion track.


Collusion means he was helping the Russians. In what sense? What did the Russian need from Trump to do what they were doing, and have been doing long before there was a Trump in the picture?

Too many democrats are guided by their wishful thinking.
The perspective of getting rid of the president at any cost makes them drool like pit bulls.
17   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Oct 31, 10:18am  

Heraclitusstudent says
Collusion means he was helping the Russians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.b713b0e5f275
If Trump signaled to the Russians that he was OK with them hacking DNC and HRC campaigns in exchange for favorable positions regarding Russia, that's collusion. Even signaling that he was OK with it is collusion in my opinion. Because if Trump doesn't see it as a problem, and it helps Trump, then he sees it as favorable, and will want to return the favor.
18   HEY YOU   2017 Oct 31, 10:22am  

curious2 says

The President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."


Hey Republicans,the states can lock up criminals & the president has nothing.
19   HEY YOU   2017 Oct 31, 10:38am  

Let Trump pardon whoever.
If the Dems had a backbone the next Dem Pres. should pardon anyone in prison that the Republicans hate.
Republicans pardon lying,treasonous,traitors. Dems can pardon liberal leftists & Brown people.
The spineless Progressives & Independents could Boycott/form a 3rd Party, DOH!

Collusion! Bullshit!
Lock up these evil slime for state tax evasion & other state crimes.
State prisons might not be as nice as Federal pens.
Who's this Trump guy with a bucket full of nothing.
20   anonymous   2017 Oct 31, 10:50am  

YesYNot says
If Trump signaled to the Russians that he was OK with them hacking DNC and HRC campaigns in exchange for favorable positions regarding Russia, that's collusion. Even signaling that he was OK with it is collusion in my opinion. Because if Trump doesn't see it as a problem, and it helps Trump, then he sees it as favorable, and will want to return the favor.


So paying some Russians for dirt on Trump is not collusion.
Getting some money in exchange for "access" is not obvious corruption by foreign powers. (it's "charity").
But expressing a favorable opinion of making some shady DNC dealing public... that is collusion and an impeachable offense...
Give me a break.

Democrats need to take a step back and try to look at this objectively.
21   bob2356   2017 Oct 31, 10:53am  

CBOEtrader says
This doesn't change the fundamental truth that his (known) corruption crimes are from years earlier. It has nothing to do with Trump, or his 9 weeks working with the campaign.


So you are saying hiring criminals for your campaign is cleaning up the swamp?
22   anonymous   2017 Oct 31, 11:27am  

bob2356 says
So you are saying hiring criminals for your campaign is cleaning up the swamp?

Are you confusing a political blow and an impeachment?
23   Rew   2017 Oct 31, 11:28am  

bob2356 says
So you are saying hiring criminals for your campaign is cleaning up the swamp?


Only the best Bob. Only the best.

Happy Halloween all ...

24   Rew   2017 Oct 31, 11:36am  

anon_b2f35 says
Democrats need to take a step back and try to look at this objectively.


Oh, I think Dems are seeking to protect and ensure all leads are chased: Dem, Ind, Repub, or Trumptard.

You will only see hand-waving, excuse making, and pleading for the investigation to stop from one side: Trump and the base.

The small fish are starting to fall inline now with pleas and cooperation already ...
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/31/sam-clovis-senate-russia-investigation-244370
... at this pace, we just sit back, and watch things unwind.

Trump is pleading to the void "DO SOMETHING!" ... because he cannot. ;)
25   Rew   2017 Oct 31, 11:47am  

Heraclitusstudent says
Collusion means he was helping the Russians. In what sense? What did the Russian need from Trump to do what they were doing, and have been doing long before there was a Trump in the picture?


The most Pro-Russian president of my lifetime? One bending over in Ukraine? One loathe to level sanctions unanimously passed by Congress against Russia? An America retrenching to isolationism, alienating allies, and running from its spot of "leader of the free world"? Civil unrest and divisiveness in the US itself? The gift of an ineffectual government in your largest adversary?

If you are wondering what Russia got, I don't think you are paying attention at all.
26   Rew   2017 Oct 31, 12:07pm  

curious2 says
I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe the President would quit if his family were threatened. He would much more likely pardon his family, and counter-attack against his opponents. He might even pardon Manafort.


Trump exposes himself to further political damage and continues to up the points on the "obstruction of justice" scale for himself.

Additionally, a pardon would go to a legal challenge, as I believe Trump cannot pardon Manafort for two reasons:
A) His charges are mostly local and with the city of New York.
B) There would be a constitutional challenge back. Because, as an example, the President cannot hire someone to commit a crime, and then pardon them. There are other examples that can fit here as well, but essentially it is an improper use of pardon.

My favorite is what happens after people are pardoned though. :) Anyone charged and then pardoned can still be called for questioning ... and they then lose the right to the 5th. If they are then caught perjuring themselves, refuse to testify, etc. they keep wracking up charges. Trump going to keep on pardoning? ;)

There is a significant political cost to pardoning as well.

The more I look at this though, Trump actually may not be able to walk away now though. I wonder if it is too late. That may depend on Mueller's sense of justice in some regards, which is fierce, non-partisan, and that of the ultimate g-man.

Trump supporters better start thinking what the excuses are going to be if/when hard evidence against Trump is presented. I guess flat refusal of belief, and some vast deep-state conspiracy, is all you will have.
27   Rew   2017 Oct 31, 12:08pm  

curious2 says
I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe the President would quit if his family were threatened.


Sorry I missed this in reply above.

Yes, I am presuming Trump has compassion for his family. Maybe I am wrong.
28   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Oct 31, 12:13pm  

The page of the NYT is funny. The titles:
- "Mueller’s First Indictments Send a Message to the President"
As in "I have nothing".
- "Editorial: Is the White House Scared Yet?"
Is Trump supposed to be scared? What is it? A Halloween special?
- "The Plot Against America: Robert Mueller hands a gangster administration its first indictments."
Hummm... no these guys indicted are not part of the administration.
- "Why George Papadopoulos Is More Dangerous Than Paul Manafort: The adviser’s guilty plea is evidence of collusion with Russia."
... Yeah he tried to get dirt, the way we know the DNC paid to get dirt.

These people are working themselves up to orgasm level before being within a mile of their target.
29   bob2356   2017 Oct 31, 12:14pm  

Sniper says
bob2356 says
So you are saying hiring criminals for your campaign is cleaning up the swamp?


@bob2356

We'll have to ask Tony Podesta that question, since his brother John left the company in 1993... Oh wait, John was still having conversations with Tony as late as 2015 or later.


Which podesta was it that was indicted? I missed that one on the news.

On the roll piggy. Spin, spin, spin.
30   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Oct 31, 12:22pm  

Sniper says
Haven't you learned yet, when you use WaPo as your source to support your narrative, you've already lost?

When will you start to refute facts instead of slinging poop at the messenger? Never? Sniper says
rely on FACTS instead of hyperbole?
Jesus, this is comical. The fact is that Trump changed the Republican platform on Russia around the time of the convention. The WaPo is correct. You are just using hyperbole instead of facing that simple undisputed fact.
31   joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 31, 12:32pm  

Sniper says
If you really want to support your delusional narrative, why don't you try posting a Fox News link instead of WaPo.

That might add some credibility to your radical, left wing, liberal trolling.


Or you could simply point out where the WaPo article is wrong and show why it's wrong.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. We all know you'll never do that. You are the king of attacking the messenger.
32   curious2   2017 Oct 31, 1:38pm  

Rew says
curious2 says
I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe the President would quit if his family were threatened.


Sorry I missed this in reply above.

Yes, I am presuming Trump has compassion for his family. Maybe I am wrong.


That comment doesn't make sense. If your family were threatened, would you quit and run away? The compassionate thing would be to pardon them, and face the MSM handwringing that the President is already facing anyway.

You keep talking about "obstruction of justice," which is a statutory offense. You seem not to understand that the Presidential pardon power is an express authorization in the Constitution itself. Almost any pardon would necessarily block the whole DoJ process, and could thus be called "obstruction of justice," but you can't erase an expressly authorized Constitutional power by citing a mere statute. Again, read your Constitution, it's free online.

You have a point about the 5th Amendment, but one hears a lot of "I don't recall" in Congressional testimony. Sometimes, people do get convicted of perjury for saying they don't recall, but that's rare. Also, in a federal case, the President could pardon them for that, too.

You have a point about state and local charges, but a President can make life difficult for a state that chooses to make life difficult for his family, even if it happens to be his home state.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I marvel at the TDS and I feel dismayed that certain Navy guys can't figure out the President's strategy. I see the same IRL, and a recent military times survey showed Navy officers in particular had the highest disapproval for the commander in chief, while the Marines had the strongest support. Just because you can't understand a particular strategy doesn't mean there is none. You look at a guy who succeeded across multiple fields where many fail, and who became a billionaire and President of the United States, and you refuse flatly somehow to believe that he has any strategy. That makes no sense, and it leaves you tiring yourself out over distractions while the Republicans control the entire federal government and most of the states.
33   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Oct 31, 1:59pm  

curious2 says
a recent military times survey showed Navy officers in particular had the highest disapproval for the commander in chief, while the Marines had the strongest level of support

Interesting. What stood out to me in Trump's favorability in military.
Officers: -23%.
Enlisted: +10%
Only 30% of officers approve of Trump.
34   curious2   2017 Oct 31, 5:26pm  

YesYNot says
Officers: -23%.
Enlisted: +10%


I saw that too, but I would have liked to see the percentages by deployment or station. Most Navy officers have no contact with hostile Muslims; many are literally at sea, and others are sailing a desk or, at best, favored customers in a Gulf regime port. In contrast, many enlisted Marines and soldiers have direct experience searching the homes and phones of average Ahmeds. They see the videos on the phones, the Osama screen savers, etc. Those videos cannot be unseen. One Islamic State favorite features a hit parade of sniper videos, the sniper's eye view, as the Islamic State snipers shot American soldiers to death. Imagine your buddy getting killed and then you find that video on dozens of phones. Cops in Scandinavia report seeing the same videos, but complain they can't do anything about it, because possessing the videos isn't even illegal. NATO politicians try to censor the videos here, because they have a polarizing effect. The videos recruit Muslims, and turn (i.e. educate) non-Muslims against Islam. So, the same difference of opinion exists between the 'high altitude' elite who say what they're paid to say, vs the ground level guys who see with their own eyes.

In 2016, Donald Trump became the first major candidate for the Presidency to speak candidly about Islam since probably the 19th century. Winston Churchill and American generals in WWII said similar things, but they weren't running for President in 2016. Islam hasn't changed. What has changed is Petrodollar corruption since Nixon's disastrous deals with KSA, and consequently "elite" American leaders' degree of familiarity with what Islam says and does.

Sometimes, the dogs are the first to detect hostile intruders. The humans outrank the dogs, and might have more education, and might at first ignore and even resent the barking, but that doesn't make the dogs wrong.
35   bob2356   2017 Oct 31, 6:10pm  

Sniper says
bob2356 says
Which podesta was it that was indicted? I missed that one on the news.


You miss them all.

Want to tell us who Company A and Company B are in the indictment?


Want to take another shot at it? Which podesta was it that was indicted. Run piggy run.
36   anonymous   2017 Oct 31, 6:20pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
The page of the NYT is funny. The titles:
- "Mueller’s First Indictments Send a Message to the President"
As in "I have nothing".
- "Editorial: Is the White House Scared Yet?"
Is Trump supposed to be scared? What is it? A Halloween special?
- "The Plot Against America: Robert Mueller hands a gangster administration its first indictments."
Hummm... no these guys indicted are not part of the administration.
- "Why George Papadopoulos Is More Dangerous Than Paul Manafort: The adviser’s guilty plea is evidence of collusion with Russia."
... Yeah he tried to get dirt, the way we know the DNC paid to get dirt.

These people are working themselves up to orgasm level before being within a mile of their target.


They're setting themselves up for a massive disappointment. Have they learned nothing from Election Night?
37   bob2356   2017 Oct 31, 6:30pm  

Sniper says
Shuck and Jive , Bullshit Bobby.

Shuck and Jive, you do it so well!


Yep, you managed to do that. Want to answer the question now? Run piggy run.
38   Rew   2017 Oct 31, 9:46pm  

curious2 says
That comment doesn't make sense. If your family were threatened, would you quit and run away? The compassionate thing would be to pardon them, and face the MSM handwringing that the President is already facing anyway.


I'm aligned with you on Trump now offering pardons to family members. I agree that's what he will do if family end up in the net. But his motivations aren't compassion, wholly. It's because based on what I see from the past two days, it is actually Trump's only option if that occurs now. He can no longer resign and crawl away. We crossed a point of no return for him yesterday.

curious2 says
Almost any pardon would necessarily block the whole DoJ process, and could thus be called "obstruction of justice," but you can't erase an expressly authorized Constitutional power by citing a mere statute. Again, read your Constitution, it's free online.


The constitution does not allow a President to be a criminal, or employ/create criminals, and then pardon them (i.e. enable criminals for self gain). While a charge of obstruction is a criminal charge, what follows a criminal charge by a President?

Answer: censure or impeachment, which are both totally political.

curious2 says
Also, in a federal case, the President could pardon them for that, too.


As stated before, yes, Trump can continually pardon those charged. You seem to think that is without cost though. Ask Arizona GOP how the Joe Arpaio pardon is going for them? Know what it did to Trump's approval ratings? I know he does.

curious2 says
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I marvel at the TDS and I feel dismayed that certain Navy guys can't figure out the President's strategy.


A narcisist winning the presidency for personal vindication has no plan or strategy beyond the win itself. Trump is transactional and reactionary being. He is no great thinker, diplomat, scholar, warrior, statesman, or alliance maker. Trump is simply a showman interested in being on TV and liked.

Or do you really believe he is trying to save the American middle class?

YesYNot says
Only 30% of officers approve of Trump.


It's the same education factor we see with civilians. Officers, predominantly, hold BSs and BAs. It's also the fact that Trump consistently says, "my military" and "my generals", especially when saying they have decision making power so that any blame for operations is shirked from himself onto the servicemen and woman. Leadership 101 right? Always blame your subordinates ... errr ... wait.


curious2 says
I saw that too, but I would have liked to see the percentages by deployment or station. Most Navy officers have no contact with hostile Muslims; many are literally at sea, and others are sailing a desk or, at best, favored customers in a Gulf regime port. In contrast, many enlisted Marines ...


Where an enlisted man walks there is a young Lieutenant or Ensign not far away.

The rest is a typical attitude of those who don't know, or would like to believe Naval service isn't forward deployed, engaged with the enemy, and somehow "less risky" than boots on the ground. To date for 2017, we have lost more on ships than in Afghanistan.
39   CBOEtrader   2017 Oct 31, 10:36pm  

YesYNot says
He was offering to update his Russian colleagues during the campaign


?? What was he doing during the campaign??

YesYNot says
and trying to figure out how best to monetize his position.


I wouldn't doubt this if there were evidence. Its a likely story. However what did he actually DO towards that goal in regards to his position w trumps campaign? Are you making assumptions or do you know of something?
40   CBOEtrader   2017 Oct 31, 10:43pm  

Rew says
if/when hard evidence


When you find hard evidence let us know...

In the meantime, we DO have hard evidence of DNC crimes regarding HRC's campaign. We also have plenty of hard evidence of HRC's past crimes.

So far no evidence regarding Trump whatsoever

Comments 1 - 40 of 66       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

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