Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2017, 04:17 PM
 
1,978 posts, read 1,553,040 times
Reputation: 2742

Advertisements

This should make us Deplorables very upset, it does me. Even though it is not a surprise.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...investigation/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2017, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,662,744 times
Reputation: 7485
The operative word is, wasn't. this does not mean he isn't.

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that D. J. Trump is currently under investigation for collusion with russians for personal gain and attempting to obstruct an investigation. That's talking in the here and now.

I'll also make a side bet that Trump is under scrutiny for unleashing the Arab dogs on Qatar suddenly in the face of Administration/military opposition because the Qataris blew him and his family off when the went begging for money on a failed real estate scam.

Last edited by CaseyB; 06-11-2017 at 07:04 PM.. Reason: rude
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 04:41 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Gilead
12,716 posts, read 7,812,515 times
Reputation: 11338
Trump himself may not personally be under investigation, but it was important, for legal reasons, for Comey to choose his words wisely in case the investigation eventually led to him. With Nixon, it started with people lower in his cabinet and eventually went all the way to the top.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 04:49 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,624,265 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
Trump himself may not personally be under investigation, but it was important, for legal reasons, for Comey to choose his words wisely in case the investigation eventually led to him. With Nixon, it started with people lower in his cabinet and eventually went all the way to the top.

It never led to Nixon. Nixion didn't get impeached. He resigned, and the goal was reached and no further was heard who did what, in the end. The assessment was that Nixon was involved in covering it up, once he found out what the LBJ Deep State was doing. Everyone was illegally talking to the Judge in secret meetings in that deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 04:51 PM
 
Location: WY
6,262 posts, read 5,070,063 times
Reputation: 7998
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
1. The operative word is, wasn't. this does not mean he isn't. Can you grasp this concept of present/past/future tense?

2. I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that D. J. Trump is currently under investigation for collusion with russians for personal gain and attempting to obstruct an investigation. That's talking in the here and now.

3. I'll also make a side bet that Trump is under scrutiny for unleashing the Arab dogs on Qatar suddenly in the face of Administration/military opposition because the Qataris blew him and his family off when the went begging for money on a failed real estate scam.
Paragraph 1 - insult the OP

Paragraph 2 -" I'll bet you a dollar to a donut" means you don't really know for sure and are just talking out of your a$$

Paragraph 3 - "I'll also made a side bet" means refer to Paragraph 2

My questions - do you have any response to the contents of the actual link that was posted by the OP? An actual, intelligent defense of the underlying thesis of the article? Or actual, intelligent comments with source links, to dismiss the contents of the article as without merit or foundation? Just wondering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 04:51 PM
 
23,974 posts, read 15,082,290 times
Reputation: 12952
There were 2 tenants in Trump Tower that might have had Intel surveillance.

The Russian gamblers and Manafort. Trump prolly was correct about the wiretapping. It just wasn't him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,662,744 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by juneaubound View Post
Paragraph 1 - insult the OP

Paragraph 2 -" I'll bet you a dollar to a donut" means you don't really know for sure and are just talking out of your a$$

Paragraph 3 - "I'll also made a side bet" means refer to Paragraph 2

My questions - do you have any response to the contents of the actual link that was posted by the OP? An actual, intelligent defense of the underlying thesis of the article? Or actual, intelligent comments with source links, to dismiss the contents of the article as without merit or foundation? Just wondering.
Wasn't meant as an insult to the OP. It was an honest question about past and present tense as that is the entire issue IMO.

I usually don't bet unless it looks like a sure thing.

Hey. I agree with Comey. "Trump wasn't under investigation".

That has absolutely nothing to do with today...........now.........the present.

Trump and his sycophants want to paint the picture that Trump isn't under investigation now by using the meme that he wasn't under investigation then. that's simply not an honest dialogue.
Since he wasn't under investigation and it seems to be complete consensus from all sides of the issue. What is the relevance of people like you making such a big deal of a known fact?

My belief is that there is a certain amount of duplicity in those who keep flogging the issue of Wasn't under investigation. And that is they want to project that because he wasn't under investigation then, that he isn't under investigation now, so lets just forget about this whole Russian mess.

That's what I think's going on with the OP, you and the people who constantly remind anyone in earshot that Trump wasn't under investigation.
Never mind that the majority of Trump's senior advisors and campaign strategists are under investigation for russian collusion and never mind that Trump has not expressed one tiny morsel of interest in the known fact that Russia tried to meddle in out election process and it is considered the greatest threat to our democratic structure in the history of the nation.

Hey! Trump wasn't under investigation. Comey said so. B........F..........D.

Last edited by mohawkx; 06-11-2017 at 05:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,538,911 times
Reputation: 24780
Investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election isn't an investigation of tRump or anyone else in particular. But those caught up in that web WILL be part of the findings and subject to consequences.

Dear Trumplings:

Keep your pants on. This thing is barely getting started.

And it promises to be VERY entertaining.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 05:19 PM
 
59,053 posts, read 27,306,837 times
Reputation: 14285
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
The operative word is, wasn't. this does not mean he isn't. Can you grasp this concept of present/past/future tense?

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that D. J. Trump is currently under investigation for collusion with russians for personal gain and attempting to obstruct an investigation. That's talking in the here and now.

I'll also make a side bet that Trump is under scrutiny for unleashing the Arab dogs on Qatar suddenly in the face of Administration/military opposition because the Qataris blew him and his family off when the went begging for money on a failed real estate scam.
Yet EVERY "leak" from "reliable" sources was anti Trump.

I think I see a pattern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,662,744 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Yet EVERY "leak" from "reliable" sources was anti Trump.

I think I see a pattern.
But many of the leaks actually came from inside the white house. So, what does that mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:25 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top