Trump Redeemed - No Russia Collusion and 2 Warrants

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: DJW001

Selling property to Russian oligarchs is not treason. It is not illegal to do business with Russians.

It is if the real estate transactions were a means to launder money for services rendered.

Wasn't that in 2005?

We don't know. If only he would release his tax returns, I'm sure that would clear everything up....

Yes we do and it was in 2005.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Trump released it?
Why only 2 pages? Why no supporting documents?

a reply to: Xcathdra

If you rely on fewer and fewer sources for the news you are withdrawing deeper and deeper into your bubble.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Trump released it?
Why only 2 pages? Why no supporting documents?

I never said Trump released it. Feel free to quote me so we are all on the same page.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you rely on fewer and fewer sources for the news you are withdrawing deeper and deeper into your bubble.

Didnt bother to watch the segment then did you? Specifically the part where several alphabet agencies didnt turn over requested documents to the committee.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you rely on fewer and fewer sources for the news you are withdrawing deeper and deeper into your bubble.

Didnt bother to watch the segment then did you? Specifically the part where several alphabet agencies didnt turn over requested documents to the committee.

Is it as reliable as Judge Napolitano?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you rely on fewer and fewer sources for the news you are withdrawing deeper and deeper into your bubble.

Didnt bother to watch the segment then did you? Specifically the part where several alphabet agencies didnt turn over requested documents to the committee.

Is it as reliable as Judge Napolitano?

You will have to stop being lazy, watch it, and decide for yourself... provided your interested in the facts.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you rely on fewer and fewer sources for the news you are withdrawing deeper and deeper into your bubble.

Didnt bother to watch the segment then did you? Specifically the part where several alphabet agencies didnt turn over requested documents to the committee.

Is it as reliable as Judge Napolitano?

You will have to stop being lazy, watch it, and decide for yourself... provided your interested in the facts.

I am interested in facts, so why should I trust Fox?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you rely on fewer and fewer sources for the news you are withdrawing deeper and deeper into your bubble.

If you rely more and more on alt-left liberal loon news you are being dragged willingly deeper into a pile of horsesh**

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you rely on fewer and fewer sources for the news you are withdrawing deeper and deeper into your bubble.

If you rely more and more on alt-left liberal loon news you are being dragged willingly deeper into a pile of horsesh**

And if you have no facts to support your beliefs, call the unbelievers names?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you rely on fewer and fewer sources for the news you are withdrawing deeper and deeper into your bubble.

Didnt bother to watch the segment then did you? Specifically the part where several alphabet agencies didnt turn over requested documents to the committee.

Is it as reliable as Judge Napolitano?

You will have to stop being lazy, watch it, and decide for yourself... provided your interested in the facts.

I am interested in facts, so why should I trust Fox?

If you were interested in the facts you would view more sources so have a more rounded view, it would be a shame to withdraw into one of those bubbles.

If you rely on fewer and fewer sources for the news you are withdrawing deeper and deeper into your bubble.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If you were interested in the facts you would view more sources so have a more rounded view, it would be a shame to withdraw into one of those bubbles.

I draw from sources all over the world in several languages. You will notice that I analyze my sources and make it clear when I trust or distrust a source, and why. For example, I have not repeated the rumor that Trump has appointed overseers to monitor the loyalty of Executive Branch employees. This rumor is plausible given Trump's increasing paranoia. (His tweets are direct evidence of his deteriorating state of mind.) Nevertheless, these "anonymously sourced reports" simply look too good to be true. like the clickbait stories that Trump supporters took for news because it played to their beliefs.

Trump's apologists have produced no actual facts to back his claim that "Obama tapped his phone." Instead, they apply a faulty chain of reasoning: "President Obama had access to all of the United States' intelligence. Members of Trump's campaign were under investigation. Obama had access to the intelligence gathered by these investigations, therefore Obama was spying on the Trump campaign."

Yes, the President could access the intelligence gathered by the investigation if he wanted to, just as he could have ordered a nuclear strike if he wanted to. There is no evidence the President did either. Furthermore, it would be illegal for him to have done so, as the White House cannot order the FBI to investigate. There is no evidence he did.

Here is what is striking about the situation: Hackers were able to leak emails embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, but not the Trump campaign. Sophisticated Russian hackers could probably exploit any number of vulnerabilities to obtain incriminating emails or texts that would support Trump's claims; if not from the secure White House servers, then from clumsy field agents or stolen Secret Service laptops. (Oops. That must be a coincidence.) No such "leaks" have been produced.

My analysis of Russia's actions predate the election cycle. They have used disinformation as a weapon on several fronts, including Ukraine, the Baltic states, and, now, France and Germany as well. Their goal is not to place a specific candidate in office, but to undermine trust, thus handicapping whoever does win. The FBI and other agencies have confirmed my analysis.

Where do you get your opinions?

ETA: Don't think no-one has noticed that some of Trump's most vocal defenders here were also very adamant in their defense of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

a reply to: DJW001

So, after drawing "from sources all over the world in several languages" and berating "Trump apologists" for accusing Obama of wiretapping with no evidence, you claim it is striking that "Hackers were able to leak emails embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, but not the Trump campaign. "

If that is "striking" to you then perhaps you should quit seeking out lots of sources in several languages in order to find articles to suit your confirmation bias.

a reply to: UKTruth

You don't think it odd that only one side's emails were released? You don't find it odd that the alleged hacker, "Guccifer 2.0," contacted one of Trump's staffers? You don't find it odd that hackers have been unable to find any evidence to support Trump's claims? In your case it is not a failure to inform yourself, it is unwillingness to analyze the facts in hand.

a reply to: DJW001

I don't recall Donald Trump got cheated out of nomination by RNC. I do recall Bernie Sanders got cheated out of nomination by DNC. RNC had no dirt. DNC did.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: DJW001

I don't recall Donald Trump got cheated out of nomination by RNC. I do recall Bernie Sanders got cheated out of nomination by DNC. RNC had no dirt. DNC did.

The infamous Trump dossier was commissioned by a Republican candidate. They had plenty of dirt, including the usual distributing flyers with the wrong date and polling place in minority neighborhoods.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: DJW001

I don't recall Donald Trump got cheated out of nomination by RNC. I do recall Bernie Sanders got cheated out of nomination by DNC. RNC had no dirt. DNC did.

Do you recall when the DNC decided it was a wise thing to do to try to have influence on the RNC primary :

Pied Piper

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Do you understand the difference between domestic politics and espionage?

a reply to: DJW001

Yes.
And I wasn't talking to you.