Donald Trump is Finished | Super Deluxe Super Cuts


#1

I knew that the MSM was a huge echo chamber on any given day, but what I didn’t know is that they are parroting the exact same words month after month.

I’ve heard the montages, like when the obscure word gravitas was suddenly in use by every news jockey in the country during the Bush campaign.

(And yes, there are even some Faux News myna birds in the video!):grin:


#2

This is the beginning of the end! Over and over and over and over. So exciting! Absolute bombshell! The walls are closing in.

There’s still not a hint of “collusion” (as if that were against the law) with Russia. Still not a hint of President Trump breaking the law. But OH this is exciting!


#3

The first thing that came to my mind after seeing that video?

This video should be shown (Fox?) so that everyone can see how these MSM predictions of doom have been notoriously WRONG over more than the past year. (Fox is really part of the MSM, so I don’t know where it would be shown anyway.)

Bonus for Trump fans: This video makes it clear that predictions of Trump’s demise are always wrong.

We should be calling Trump the TEFLON PRESIDENT.


#4

These Bozos have to invent something to keep the dim wits in their base energized. They have put so much effort into impeaching Trump that they have to show something to keep the melon heads from despair.

The amazing thing is that Trump has just kept on doing his job regardless of their efforts. He has stimulated the economy, taken some of the fangs out of Obama care and negotiated new trade deals that will benefit American workers. All of this has been done with zero help from the Democrat Party.

One has to wonder why those who work would vote for the current mess that is the Democrat Party. In France people are protesting in the streets because their dim-witted president is pursuing exactly the policy that the Democrats would be pushing if they were in power.

The Democrats used to care about jobs and worker prosperity. Now all they care about is pushing socialism, illegal alien rights, globalism and environmental policies that will put millions out of work. The typical Democrat elite is like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. They live in huge houses that consume many resources to maintain and leave big carbon footprints with their giant SUVs and private jets. They tell the rest of us that we should be wearing sack cloths and driving cars with lawnmower engines in them or electric cars with a charge-up range of 100 miles.

The worst of these idiots think that carbon emissions should be scaled back to where they were at the end of the American Civil War. In other words they wish that the industrial revolution never happened.


#5

He would only be “teflon” if he’d ACTUALLY done something illegal, but wasn’t punished for it…sort of like Hillary, Bill, Obama, Comey, etc. etc. etc. The fact is, nothing sticks to him because he’s not doing anything illegal…regardless of how fervently the left would like to believe that he is.


#6

Collusion seems to not be the end goal. Now they are going for obstruction. It’s still BS.


#7

Let’s be clear on this. Collusion is no more a crime than carrying a TV out of a house. However, if the TV isn’t yours, then it is a crime. Similarly, collusion is not a crime, but you can collude in a way that is a crime.


#8

Alas, that describes the Bill of Wrongs and Captain Teleprompter.


#9

Yes, OK, true. But there’s been no crime. No hint of a crime.

Carter Page was a volunteer, unpaid, junior adviser who literally had never met with Trump when he went to Russia to give an economic speech. But they singled him out as a nefarious agent who surely must have been lining up a multi-billion dollar bribe to Trump to lift trade sanctions if he, the underdog candidate, should happen to win.

The “information” came from Hillary’s fraudulent triple-hearsay dossier.


#10

Surely you can’t be suggesting that you know that? I mean, I understand that is your opinion and I respect that, but I happen to have a different opinion based on the evidence I’ve seen. However, we’re both in a similar place in that we have no privileged access to the kinds of information that would prove one way or another.

I’m willing to wait for the full report to come out.

Having said that, it seems to me that Trump spends an inordinate amount of time trying to discredit the people investigating him. Attacking the credibility of others is a classic tactic employed by people, generally speaking, when they are guilty. That is, a lot of Trump’s behavior that suggests, IMO, that he’s guilty. Maybe I’m wrong, and despite what others believe here, I’m willing to wait for the evidence.

I have posted several times here on what Trump has done and why I think he’s probably guilty of crimes (that might make it seem I’ve already decided he is guilty), but RO is a unique opportunity for me to reach out to people who think differently than I do. Who see the world differently than I do and believe it or not, I learn a lot and I appreciate the dialogue. Frankly, I think people “like you” and people “like me” spend wayyyyyy to much time in their own “bubbles” and don’t talk enough with people that don’t share their opinions.

When I post the things that I do, I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind, rather I’m looking for ideas and opinions that I might not have considered. And there have been a few times when the people here have shared things I didn’t consider or that have made me look differently at an issue and I’m greatful for the opportunity.

-Cheers.


#11

If President Trump was ACTUALLY guilty of anything whatsoever, given the propensity of leftists to “leak” “derogatory” information they believe will damage him, don’t you think we’d KNOW about it after a year and a half of the Mueller “investigation?” The Mueller bunch leak like sieves and have done so for the entirety of their quest to find something against the President.


#12

Dave, who are you trying to convince with that, me or you?


#13

I could use your logic and say that, the Clinton’s never broke the law because if they had, the all Republican Congress would have uncovered it already. The fact that they have not proves they never broke any laws.

See how flimsy that is?


#14

I understand you’re trying to come up with a silly example to make a counterpoint. But it sounds like the foundation of you example is your belief that evidence of Hillary Clinton’s lawlessness hasn’t been “uncovered” yet. Is that right?

Here’s an excerpt from the July 5, 2016 press briefing by James Comey, director of the FBI:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; …

So, no less than the director of the FBI stated she sent email in eight chains that contained TOP SECRET information. That’s against the law. People have literally gone to jail for much less. And they have the evidence.

But of course, in that same briefing Comey wrongfully usurped the role of the prosecutor and declared, “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

So that was a bad example to base your point on. The evidence is in the hands of the FBI, but the director’s own testimony to the press. Though the fix was in.


#15

(Very slight correction…Seven email chains :slight_smile:

Yes, I’m aware, here is a direct quote - from Comey I believe (so we know what we’re talking about):

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). Also, systems like that contain meta-data that cannot be deleted by the end user (at least to the people that she was corresponding with). It would have contained data about who, when, where, how many etc etc. There are digital fingerprints all over. Hiding 30k illicit emails would be nearly impossible.

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

Having said that, I never defended Clinton.

  1. I think the use of a private server, while not illegal (to my knowledge at the time) was politically stupid.

  2. I’m not aware of any law that prevented her from deleting her emails, save the ones pertaining to US government business, but again, politically this was INSANELY stupid on her part. I also find it ridiculous that she thought she could delete 30k emails and not, at least by accident, delete some official business.

  3. Knowing how email systems work (as I work in data storage), if she were deleting massive amounts of classified or state dept business, it would have been found already. You can delete the stuff on your servers and backups, but then you’d have to go out into the world and delete 10’s of thousands of copies of those emails, most of which are stored on several devices and each device has two copies. Hackers have proven that they can access systems when they are motivated enough, either Hillary’s copies off her server or any one of the 10’s, perhaps 100’s of thousands of emails sent to others. The fact that there wasn’t any mystery emails released by Russia tells me there, most likely, that there was not a widespread deleting of State Dept emails.

So should Clinton have been charged with a crime? I haven’t seen the evidence and I do not know her intent and neither do you. I’ve always supported the idea of an impartial investigation, but given the fact that the Republicans have been in charge for 2 years but haven’t opened one or called her before House or Senate committees (as they already have ad-nasuim) I suspect their claims or “crimes” committed are just to rile people like you up, but as I said, I’d have no issues with an impartial investigation to put the issue to rest.

However, I don’t think most of this people on this forum would ever accept anything but a finding of crimes commited, even if Trump himself ran the investigation.


#16

Exactly.


#17

BS. The contents of her server and personal devices were subpoenaed by Congress BEFORE she decided to selectively delete some of the data on them and destroy her personal devices. Destroying the contents under subpoena IS a criminal offense…period…and is prima facie PROOF that she’s a criminal for doing so. She should already be in Leavenworth.


#18

You may be correct, but proving intent is pretty difficult, that’s the only reason Trump is still President because they can’t prove the intention of his actions. Did he fire Comey to obstruct justice? I think so, just as you think Hillary is guilty of obstructing Congress.

Would you say this story about Clinton emails is accurate?


#19

“Intent” doesn’t MATTER when dealing with classified information, CSB. Revealing it accidentally can land you in jail for a LONG sentence.


#20

Evidence? Wow, I must have missed it. Please enlighten me.