A deafening silence..
26 responses | 0 likes
Started by TimNew - Feb. 2, 2018, 8:56 p.m.

In view of the significant revelations of the day,  the silence from the left is nearly deafening.


The spin doctors are working over time and I am sure before the weekend is out,  we'll hear all sorts of explanations and rationalizations and justifications..     


But the facts remain damning...


Meet The Press is a "Must See" this week  <G>

Comments
By Vandenplas - Feb. 2, 2018, 9:33 p.m.
Like Reply

You need your hearing aids cleaned.  

By silverspiker - Feb. 3, 2018, 1:48 a.m.
Like Reply

 there are two sides of a story...

And now we know the but one side of the truth...

Thank you memo... nobody is disputing any of the 30 facts... hmmm

By metmike - Feb. 3, 2018, 9:59 a.m.
Like Reply

Tim,

The reason to ignore the significance is intentional............because it vindicates Trump.


It's more evidence (which is growing huge) to show where the real collusion was:

Obama administrations FBI and Justice Department, along with the DNC/Clinton people to get Clinton elected initially, then to destroy Trump after the election. 

Never has been 1 iota of evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. 

Our blatantly biased and liberal media have become an arm of the democratic party, no longer capable of objective investigating. Over 90% of the coverage of Trump from the media last year was negative. How does that happen, when by objective measures/accomplishments, he was one of the most successful first year presidents in history?

The media has tremendous power in shaping the views of Americans. They have carved out an image of Trump as a racist, xenophobe, white supremacist, nazi that threatens the US similar to Hitler in Germany.

Even as the overwhelming evidence vindicates Trump and shows malfeasance on the part of those opposing him, they grasp for ways to continue to twist the story around and turn it anti Trump.


Even in the face of blatant violations of the Constitution by our intelligence agencies. 


By Vandenplas - Feb. 3, 2018, 10:04 a.m.
Like Reply

Did Nunez's memo vindicate Trump's grabbing'em?  

By metmike - Feb. 3, 2018, 10:52 a.m.
Like Reply

Vanderfraud,

Thanks for another moronic comment to add to the overwhelming evidence to what cfdr has stated about you. 


By mojo - Feb. 3, 2018, 11:13 a.m.
Like Reply

It cracks me up how easily Vandy can make your head explode with a simple one line question or comment, especially after you've gone to all the trouble of writing a 6 paragraph screed in Trump's defense. You Trump supporters are an endless source of comic relief. Thanks for the laughs.


By metmike - Feb. 3, 2018, 11:48 a.m.
Like Reply

"It cracks me up how easily Vandy can make your head explode with a simple one line question or comment"


"head exploding"

Is that the trolls new terminology to describe me calling out frauds and morons.......like you?



By mojo - Feb. 3, 2018, 1:53 p.m.
Like Reply

Hey, calm down bro, you're liable to blow out a vein in your brain. I want you around to give me your mea culpa when Trump gets indicted for obstruction of justice & money laundering.

By mojo - Feb. 3, 2018, 10:10 a.m.
Like Reply

By TimNew - Feb. 3, 2018, 12:17 p.m.
Like Reply

For once,   I have nothing to add.   Well stated.

By joj - Feb. 3, 2018, 10:20 a.m.
Like Reply

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/opinion/nunes-memo-trump-taxes.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

This is all potentially interesting information. How significant is it in context? For starters, what other evidence did the intelligence court rely on in finding probable cause to issue the warrant? The memo doesn’t say. What about the court’s rationale for issuing three separate extensions, each of which required investigators to present new evidence beyond the dossier? The memo doesn’t say. Was any significant piece of information in the dossier found to be inaccurate? The memo doesn’t say. Did the court assume bias on the part of Mr. Steele or the funders of his research, as courts regularly do when considering evidence supporting a request for a warrant? The memo doesn’t say.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/opinion/leaving-the-fbi.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

Republicans trashing the institution of the FBI will do long lasting damage to our national security.  What happened to Blue Lives Matter?  (empty slogan)  I wonder who this FBI agent is referring to in his statement of resignation.

You MUST be living in a bubble if you haven't heard the resounding loud response to the memo.   

As for the media:  Did the Media say "Mexicans are rapists and murderers"?  Or did Trump.  Did the media stand up in the debates and publicly call for a foreign adversary to release HRC emails and meddle in our elections?  Or did Trump?  Did the media repeatedly attack the judiciary?  Or did Trump.  Did the media lie about Russian contacts and "forget" numerous meetings with Russians?  Or did Trump's campaign?  Did the media refuse to release Trump's taxes?  Or did Trump.  Does the media lie about everything from crowd size, to landslide elections, to NYcity having had the highest crime rate in decades?  Or does Trump?    The media can't possibly keep up with the harm Trump does to this country because he's going 110 miles an hour with his destruction.  

My hunch is that Trump is much worse than we know.

By mcfarm - Feb. 3, 2018, 10:47 a.m.
Like Reply

so the memo does not say how what percent the memo was used? well, you got  problem bud, McCabe testified just this Dec about the importance of the memo...go back and read that testimony before you try to spin that crap

By metmike - Feb. 3, 2018, 11:06 a.m.
Like Reply

Sure joj,

And Lorreta Lynch and Bill Clinton had an accidental meeting on a Phoenix airplane, only discussing their grandchildren and Bill's golf game back in June 2016.

Keep believing only information that confirms what you have already decided you know and is being spoon fed to you from biased sources. 

Keep interpreting everything one way, no matter how powerful the evidence is that it's wrong. 

Keep ignoring the facts. After all this time, still not a shred of evidence of a Trump collusion with Russia.........but the assumption, that overwhelming evidence to convict him and impeach him of this crime will suddenly appear out of nowhere continues to go on and on and on. 


By joj - Feb. 3, 2018, 11:32 a.m.
Like Reply

metmike,

I don't know if collusion happened or did not happen.  Muller is not finished with his investigation.  But apparently you have drawn your conclusion already.  Trump did however twice confess to obstruction.  Once to Lester Holt on national TV and once to the (wait for it) .... Russians.  But obstruction doesn't bother you I guess.

As for impeachment.  I certainly hope not.  Then we might elect an authentic religious nut instead of a fake religious nut.  Better that Trump gets defeated in 2020 and goes home with his tail between his legs.

By mcfarm - Feb. 3, 2018, 11:42 a.m.
Like Reply

sure....... I am guessing about right now after that brilliant response the next Kennedy had to the state of the union has Trump just terrified to run against him

By metmike - Feb. 3, 2018, 1:02 p.m.
Like Reply

"I don't know if collusion happened or did not happen.  Muller is not finished with his investigation.  But apparently you have drawn your conclusion already.  Trump did however twice confess to obstruction.  Once to Lester Holt on national TV and once to the (wait for it) .... Russians.  But obstruction doesn't bother you I guess."

Like I have always stated, after all this time, there is zero authentic evidence, including the fake news and fruadulent anonomously leaked evidence. My opinion is based of the legit evidence.  We don't know all the evidence yet but we sure as heck have plenty and it all points to collusion from the other side. 


One side keeps hoping for something from Muller to get Trump. It's possible there will be something especially with the KNOWN/PROVEN actions and words of our justice department in the past. No, the republicans did not make up the reason for the Lynch/Clinton meeting and other stuff that is documented. 


On obstruction, it would be very difficult to get somebody on obstruction of JUSTICE when they are be investigated for something that they did not do.

If Trump did not collude with Russia, he would know with certainty that an investigation of him for something that he did not do is based on false information and is fraudulent. 


It would be very difficult to convict somebody of obstruction when interfering in a fraudulent investigation based on false information........if that person knew it was fraudulent and the information false. 


What is there to cover up, if you didn't do anything wrong? How are you obstructing justice if justice is that you did not do anything wrong and should not be charged with crimes?

Convicted of obstructing a fraudulent investigation that was using false information against them, an innocent person?  Wow. That might be a first.


Muller will have to show collusion with Russia or crimes that Trump committed in order to charge him with an offense that gives him the motive to cover up those crimes.

The key word here is JUSTICE. Obstruction charges will go hand in hand with crimes to cover up or lack of crimes and nothing to cover up/obstruct for. If obstruction has the intention of righting a wrong, there is no intent of obstructing JUSTICE.


Sounds like YOU are the one that has already decided he obstructed justice based on a statement that he admitted it twice.

Could firing James Comey be interpreted as an attempt to obstruct in the investigation? Absolutely. So could certain statements that Trump has made, a man who embellishes and distorts the truth to spin things his way constantly.

However, since Comey has clearly proven to be the corrupt one and the investigation has apparently not turned up any dirt on Trump and is based at least partly if not mostly on false information, how would Muller charge Trump with obstruction of JUSTICE?


Show me the crime(s) and I'll agree with you. 



By joj - Feb. 3, 2018, 3:58 p.m.
Like Reply

Of course there can be obstruction without successful conviction of collusion.  Have you heard of Al Capone?  Guilty of tax fraud.  Not because he wasn't a murderer, but because that's all they could get him on.  Same with OJ, same with Richard Nixon.  

One question for you Metmike.  If Trump is innocent of collusion, why does he act like he is guilty as sin?  Why not castigate the Russians for meddling in our elections?  Why does Trump insult EVERYONE (Dems, Republicans, journalists, judges, the FBI, the generals)?  But he has never uttered a bad thing about Putin?  So bizarre. 

The craziest assertion is that the Democrats colluded with Russia to help defeat HRC.  How does one assert that with a straight face?

Trump goes down as the worst president in history already.  And thats saying something.  He is....

The first president to fail to protect us from an attack on our democracy from a foreign power.

The first president to enrich his private interests, and those of his family, directly and openly.

The first president to assert that the press is an enemy of the people.  (language of despots)

The first president to threaten his political opponent with jail.

By TimNew - Feb. 3, 2018, 4:22 p.m.
Like Reply

Can you point to a reference where anyone said "The craziest assertion is that the Democrats colluded with Russia to help defeat HRC.  How does one assert that with a straight face?"

What the memo shows it that Hillary and the dems colluded with Russia in an attempt to discredit Trump, and then accused him of collusion with Russians....


The historians will chuckle over this one.


By metmike - Feb. 3, 2018, 5:25 p.m.
Like Reply

 I asked you for some evidence and here are your responses.


1.  "If Trump is innocent of collusion, why does he act like he is guilty as sin?"

2. " has never uttered a bad thing about Putin?" We could be like Obama, the dems and the media and have a foreign policy that favors Iran with 1.7 billion (not the 400 million originally stated) of free money that it uses to support terrorists and no sanctions, while letting ISIS grow(and claiming climate change is the biggest threat not terrorism) and falsely blame Russia for the election loss, while trying to start a war with the only country on the planet that can obliterate the US 100 times over orrrrrrrr, we could be like Trump and defeat ISIS, stop giving money to terrorist harboring Iran and get along with Russia(the only super power that could annihilate us) while opposing some of their positions.

3. "Trump goes down as the worst president in history already."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2017-12-21/donald-trump-is-the-most-successful-first-year-president-of-all-time

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455797/donald-trump-first-year-accomplishments

4. "The first president to fail to protect us from an attack on our democracy from a foreign power." If you are talking about Russia(that actually didn't effect the outcome of the election) Obama was president.


5. "The first president to enrich his private interests, and those of his family, directly and openly." With no evidence but somehow Bill Clinton does not register with you. 

6. "The first president to assert that the press is an enemy of the people." 

They are in this case. I was part of the media for 11 years, from 1982-1993 and know their bias. They are trying to impose their biased position on Americans. 

What would you call a bunch of people trying to stop somebody, at any cost.........who was accomplishing his agenda/actions in the first year  to Make America Great? 

They should have the motto:

"Stop Trump from making America Great!" or 

"Make war with Russia"

Or "let in anybody that wants to come here"

Or, "the best weather and climate in the last 1,000 years is catastrophic human caused climate change and the US should pay  a penalty of 100 billion dollars over the next decade because we are responsible and must severely cut back on developing our country's energy resources"

Or "don't pay attention to the lowest black unemployment rate in history because Trump is a racist".

Or "don't pay attention to job creation and economic growth because Trump colluded with Russia and obstructed justice" 

Or "don't pay attention to Trump defeating ISIS and taking measures to make Americans safer because he is a xenophobe"

You mean that media? Yeah, they clearly oppose many policies that are in the best interests of Americans. What would you call that?


7. "The first president to threaten his political opponent with jail." 

That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that his political opponent is/was the most corrupt person to ever run for president and blatantly violated numerous laws but was protected by the FBI and justice department, when anybody else (like you or me........or Trump) would have been locked up in prison with a long sentence.  Emails joj, or the Clinton foundation or the uranium scandal.


joj,

You are as looney as mojo. Your evidence is subjective interpretation of events and actions that don't even make sense. ...... and what the media has brain washed you to think. I really got to understand your thinking in that last email. Wow. 



By joj - Feb. 3, 2018, 8:26 p.m.
Like Reply

metmike,

Your excuses for all the harm done by Trump to this country ring hollow.  

By Vandenplas - Feb. 3, 2018, 8:56 p.m.
Like Reply

What's with this "authentic" adjective you continue to use in your dissertations, i.e., authentic science, authentic facts, authentic evidence, etc.?  And who determines what is "authentic" anyway?  Is it done by majority rule, or minority rule?

You need to have a drag on some beneficial (and authentic) CO2.

By metmike - Feb. 4, 2018, 9:58 a.m.
Like Reply

"What's with this "authentic" adjective you continue to use in your dissertations"

"you need to have a drag on some beneficial (and authentic) CO2"

Vandy,

I've been using that word "authentic" here on MarketForum for years. In fact, Alex told me that it was his favorite word in an email. 

Would you like to know what his favorite adjective for you was?

He used it a few times when he was facing decisions on whether to sit you out in the "penalty box" (as he described it) again or him deciding whether to let you rejoin the rest of us non violaters...........again. 


You see vandenplas, your mean spirited trolling and attacks on "authentic" posters  here does more than just "rattle chains" of individuals that you target for your own personal amusement as you have told us is your objective.

I think that, maybe in memory of Alex, I may start referring to you with his adjective for you.  It's a 5 letter word and begins with the letter P.

No, not the one that you constantly use in your moronic Trump posts. 


Personally, I think fraud and troll are best fitting but Alex took it a bit more personal since it caused him way more frustration and work and so  he used P____ to describe you. 

Thanks for the last post attacking Alex's favorite word that I use on the forum. It made me think of this wonderful idea! 


By Vandenplas - Feb. 4, 2018, 12:47 p.m.
Like Reply

Sounds like you are trying to tug on the heart strings of Alex's wife, in hopes she might just happen to read one of your trashing posts of me, and influence the moderator to suspend or ban me.

Whether the word authentic was Alex's favorite word or not has no bearing whatsoever on my criticism of your incessant use  AND MISUSE of the word.  Stop and think a minute, if you are capable of doing so--- for example, what is the difference between a fact and an authentic fact?


 

By metmike - Feb. 3, 2018, 11:45 a.m.
Like Reply

"the assumption, that overwhelming evidence to convict him and impeach him of this crime will suddenly appear out of nowhere continues to go on and on and on."


So  why do so many people, like mojo have this assumption?

1. The media tell you/them this.

2. The media reporting on Trump is 90% negative and focuses on anything that it can spin as negative.

3. But the media gets information on the Russia-Trump investigation from some where(though it often spins it into fake news) Where did the anonymous, leaked sources come from?


Gee, it couldn't be the FBI and justice department. Actually, Jim Comey testified that HE leaked information to the media to cause it have an influence. He also drafted a letter exonerating Hillary Clinton before she was even interviewed.


Is this the same FBI that is being unfairly attacked for political purposes?


How ironic, that the perpetrators, are accusing the victims of the crime that they committed and are twisting the facts to  convince the already convinced to stay with them on this. 

"If the glove does not fit, you can't convict"  Mark Fermon, the lead cop was a racist and this caused him and the cops to tamper with the evidence in the OJ case. We all know that OJ killed 2 people but clever lawyers convinced a bunch of jurors otherwise(reasonable doubt at least)............in spite of monumental evidence of all kinds that proved he did it.

People will believe anything...............like the FBI and justice department are the victims here or that Trump colluded with Russia. 


All you need, just like OJ got, are some clever people with clever marketing schemes to tell convincing stories(lies) in a powerful venue(like mainstream media).

Objective, authentic facts don't matter to a brain that already has decided what it thinks that it knows or to somebody that has a strong alliance to one side telling the story.


By cliff-e - Feb. 3, 2018, 8:40 p.m.
Like Reply
By kermit - Feb. 4, 2018, 5:40 p.m.
Like Reply

Anti oil groups out of California bypassed rules in the last Canadian election.  They are bragging about the ridings they controlled.