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.
Trump never once asked about what the Russians were up to and how it could be prevented in the future.
Trump's lack of curiosity is stunning.
Either he is blissfully clueless about what being POTUS is all about or he already knew what the Russians were up to and has no intention of trying to stop it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangelag
This! I haven't been able to fathom how he has not made a statement about the absolutely grievous interference by the Russians in our country's elections. His absence of any remonstration is stunning! ...and telling, sadly.
For quite a while, Trump insisted that he wouldn't believe it until the intelligence community showed him their sources.
They showed him their sources. He gave a half-hearted public admission that it might be true.
Within days Russian cybersecurity experts were arrested as American spies and hauled off to prison. Another guy ended up dead in the back of his Lexus.
I don't agree. Here you have a unique situation where a President is elected and the first thing on many peoples' minds is to investigate anything that moves near him. So instead of a celebratory period he's facing war from the start. Both investigations and smashing of store windows in the capital.
Is it his fault that his opponents don't accept the election results?
It won't happen period. Clinton isn't going to be president regardless of what happens in the investigation and that's a good thing (and I voted for her). There's a large contingent of Americans who support the president blindly. The folks who would still support him if he "shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue." There are plenty of them in this thread. If somehow (however unlikely), Trump is removed from office, and Clinton replaces him (a fantasy- but I'm entertaining it for the purposes of this threat), you will have fixed nothing as far as the nation's discontent goes. In fact, you've made it worse. Much of Trump's base feels that Trump is an outsider in a corrupt "swamp" hellbent on maintaining the status quo. Ousting Trump without extremely good cause (i.e. literally shooting someone on 5th Ave) would reinforce those feelings. Replacing him with Hillary- the one person they consider to be the face of the swamp- would start an uprising. Barring undeniable, irrefutable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia and the nation is at risk, you don't remove him from office.
Most likely not. But if more evidence comes to light, it's possible. Especially if Trumps approval ratings continue to drop and his disapproval ratings continue to rise. GOP Congressmen are going to do what they think is most beneficial to their chances at retaining their seats. As of right now, they're not going to do it. But if anything else comes to light, or his favor with their constituents continues to slide, that might change. My guess is that you won't see any shift until races start to take shape for 2018. They'll do what plays best with their base and helps their changes at winning. As of right now, I don't think that's impeachment.
Absolutely. All of the investigation is still very much alive. Declaring vindication and victory is the biggest "head in the sand" moment I've seen from Trump's supporters yet. No, Comey didn't "crush" Trump either (and nobody with half a brain thought he would), but he laid a very solid foundation for an obstruction case in the long game- even going so far as to insinuate intent (which is further than I expected him to go). He built the argument that his firing was in response to his unwillingness to show loyalty to Trump or let Flynn go. That's a pretty strong stance from a guy who is fully aware of the consequences of lying under oath. What's more is that he also used Trump's own statements and words to discredit the president. Trumps threat about the tapes is now in a tough spot. Either the tapes exist and they validate what Comey claimed (because if they don't he lied under oath), or they don't exist and Comey called the president's bluff. Neither of those look good for POTUS. He also added more weight to rumors that Trump's relationship with his staff is rocky (particularly with his comments re: Sessions). So no, there was no smoking gun, it wasn't the last nail in the coffin for the president, but it certainly wasn't vindication for the President or his administration by a long shot.
"Especially if Trumps approval ratings continue to drop"
Most people do NOT follow politics very closely, if at all.
As long as the alphabet media and the liberal print media, NY Times, Wash. Post, etc., keep doing story after story making accusations and flat out lying, the people who respond to those rating polls, will respond based on what this media is saying.
Plus, you have dig deep into WHO these pollster are tallying.
I dug into 1 poll where they asked 13% MORE dems then repubs.
The poster who used that poll went on and on how Trumps "ratings" were down.
"The devil is ALWAYS in the details!"
So, I challenge you POST the exact polls you are referring to and WHO they polled to get their results.
For quite a while, Trump insisted that he wouldn't believe it until the intelligence community showed him their sources.
They showed him their sources. He gave a half-hearted public admission that it might be true.
Within days Russian cybersecurity experts were arrested as American spies and hauled off to prison. Another guy ended up dead in the back of his Lexus.
Got to wonder how that happened.
Well, we also know that he has denounced all of our intelligence community, so no matter what they may/may not report to him, he sees it as untrue. So sad that this thing has any say over any 'intelligence' seeing as he has none.
Trump tweeted last night that Comey lied under oath repeatedly during yesterday's testimony.
It boggles the mind that someone who already has a bad reputation for lying would accuse a man who was the countries primary law enforcement officer since 2003 of repeated counts of perjury.
Trump tweeted last night that Comey lied under oath repeatedly during yesterday's testimony.
It boggles the mind that someone who already has a bad reputation for lying would accuse a man who was the countries primary law enforcement officer since 2003 of repeated counts of perjury.
By the way, notes made after a meeting are admissible as evidence.
He lied twice.
1. He said in a previous hearing that he nor anyone else was the source of any leaks
2. That he leaked the memos AFTER Trump's tweet when in fact he released it BEFORE the tweet.
Trump tweeted last night that Comey lied under oath repeatedly during yesterday's testimony.
It boggles the mind that someone who already has a bad reputation for lying would accuse a man who was the countries primary law enforcement officer since 2003 of repeated counts of perjury.
He lied twice.
1. He said in a previous hearing that he nor anyone else was the source of any leaks
2. That he leaked the memos AFTER Trump's tweet when in fact he released it BEFORE the tweet.
Those are the two known right now.
Which memo specifically are you refering to?
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.
Who's the Liar?
