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.
Notice how CNN is changing it's tone ever so slightly now. When would we have thought of ever reading about an attack on a airport security guard , as seen today, with CNN reporting the attacker reportedly shouted something in arabic during the incident. Not even FOX News mentioned anything in this regard.
Also, CNN is backing off overt criticism of Trump lately. This Trump guy, he is a force of nature. No doubt about it.
at the end of the day, they have to have ratings to do their thing.... at this point they have fallen behind the lowly MSNBC. reruns of I Love Lucy get better ratings.... they have to do something to turn that thing around.... sad realty but it seems most folk have caught on and recognize there is no news at CNN
Noted Liberal Alan Dershowitz, has articulated the legal point that even if Trump picked up the phone, called Putin in person and said "lets coordinate our efforts to defeat Hillary" and Putin and Trump then concluded such an agreement, there is nothing in that that is illegal.
Now, I had never heard such a view, but this is his legal opinion... He states there is nothing at all in the US Code that deals with such an situation. There is no crime for coordinating with some foreign group.
I personally do not believe there is any evidence at all that there was collusion.
If Dershowitz says that's the law, I believe him.
But I think it's interesting that Dershowitz omits an important point, which I am positive he knows - impeachment does not require evidence of illegality.
But I think it's interesting that Dershowitz omits an important point, which I am positive he knows - impeachment does not require evidence of illegality.
he wasn't discussing impeachment at that point.
He went further and said you cannot indict a sitting president. that the special prosecutor would have to submit findings to congress, who would have to impeach, the senate then convict and remove and then the former president could be indicted.
so he did deal with that as well.... but his overall perspective is there is nothing here to investigate beause if Trump did what he is accused of doing, its not illegal.
He went further and said that the obstruction charge is also nonsense. (his word not mine) because the president has the constitutional power to hire/fire the FBI director. He further has constitutional power to actually just end an investigation.
Trump elected for president, CNN talks impeachment, Terrorist attack innocent people, Democrat unmasking, CNN talks impeachment, CNN talks impeachment, more jobs, CNN talks about impeachment, no evidence, CNN talks impeachment, Comey fired, CNN talks impeachment, Comey admits to leaking, CNN talks impeachment, and on and on
Obviously that didn't pan out so now CNN will talk Obstruction... lets see if they can throw everything at the wall to see if that sticks.
I'll bet Democrats are tired of losing and emotionally drained.
The one here was spot on for the election results. I mean right on the money how it turned out.
Everyones post was, "I want Trump to win, but I know Hillary will be the President".
For 3 election cycles , 2008,2012 and 2016, City-data polling was most accurate of all, predicting the winner each time around.
Next time around could be a landslide for Trump. 2020 is already looking #MAGA
Not unless there's evidence presented that he committed obstruction of Justice. That's Robert Mueller's job; not mine.
The only significance of the poll is that so many voters are inclined to believe that Trump either colluded or obstructed simply due to their negative view of Trump.
Mark me as undecided. I'm neither pushing for Trump's removal from office or cheerleading for him. I could never vote for a Donald Trump, but my political convictions doesn't undermine my support for the rule of law.
Trump shined in the third debate. The first two were disasters for him. The third debate is the one that mattered most however. It was also the debate that solidified evangelical support for Trump. Prior to that, evangelicals weren't very warm to Trump for the most part. Without the 81% of evangelicals having voted for him, he couldn't have won.
I thought he did pretty well in the first debate, and at that time I didn't even like Trump. I actually felt sorry for Hillary during that debate. I still remember some of his answers, and all I remember of Hillary's was that they were practiced politician's answers and one good zinger that she obviously was waiting to drop whenever she had an opportunity. Plus her rictus smile that looked so fake. She did so bad I was surprised at the spin later saying she won so handily.
Trump is inarticulate, but you got a sense of what he meant. It was frustrating, but in the end he sounded authentic and like he was someone who wouldn't just talk about it. He would actually try to do it. The first part Hillary talked about infrastructure, but the resistance hasn't even tried to work with Trump on that issue. So we know they just pay lip service to wanting what is best for the country.
Last edited by katygirl68; 06-21-2017 at 06:28 PM..
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.
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.
