Bogie56

Trump's Biggest Whoppers

68,200 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, NipkowDisc said:

the point is, Arturo, he is pulling it off. he remains president and his chances of reelection are growing.

:D

Whatever spin Fox News and Donald Trump are going with, the thing is that Robert Mueller, feeble though he seemed, was able to confirm to the whole country some of Donald Trump’s wrongdoings.  The cry to impeach will only get louder.  The rants to distract by Jordan, Tillis, Gomer (or is it Goober) did not keep Mueller off balance for long.  People who haven’t read the report heard about some of the findings, no matter how much that toad(ie) Bill Barr tried to restrict his testimony.  The tide will turn...:it ain’t over till it’s over, and it ain’t over  yet.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arturo said:

Whatever spin Fox News and Donald Trump are going with, the thing is that Robert Mueller, feeble though he seemed, was able to confirm to the whole country some of Donald Trump’s wrongdoings.  The cry to impeach will only get louder.  The rants to distract by Jordan, Tillis, Gomer (or is it Goober) did not keep Mueller off balance for long.  People who haven’t read the report heard about some of the findings, no matter how much that toad(ie) Bill Barr tried to restrict his testimony.  The tide will turn...:it ain’t over till it’s over, and it ain’t over  yet.

if all that were true the cowardly democrats would have started impeachment by now.

stop kidding yourself.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see hearing about Individual One's very real crimes has not moved the needle one iota with his pathetic supporters.  

Congressman Quigley put it best saying that after hearing that Trump welcomed and encouraged Russian interference in the American election and that he lied about it afterward and tried to limit or shut down the investigation about the attack - if after hearing all of that it matters not to the American people then the trouble we are in as a nation is far worse than anything Trump has done.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
·

Embattled Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló resigns amid public outcry

"Ricky, te botamos!" ("Ricky, we threw you out!") the jubilant crowd exclaimed after the governor's announcement.
 
Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló announced his resignation (effective 8-2),
 
days after demonstrators at the island's largest protest in recent history called for his ouster over a scandal involving leaked private chats
 
as well as corruption investigations and arrests....
 

The news came after three attorneys commissioned by the president of Puerto Rico’s House of Representatives, Carlos Méndez Núñez, unanimously found five offenses that constituted grounds for impeachment.

In the report that was leaked to the press, the attorneys found Rosselló committed four serious offenses and one misdemeanor, including illicitly using public resources and services for partisan purposes, as well as allowing government officials and contractors to misuse public funds and time for non-government work.

Méndez had announced he had convened a meeting for Thursday afternoon to begin the impeachment process......

 
==================================
 
 
The people of Puerto Rico have endured so much—disaster and tragedy, economic crisis, government corruption, generations of disrespect.
 
I'm inspired by my fellow U.S. citizens and their movement to hold their government accountable.
 
giphy.gif

=============================================

 
TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE!
 
:lol:;)
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arturo said:

Yes.  Trump’s crimes will sooner or later become too much to keep the growing chorus to impeach at bay.  Pelosi will give in and allow the right thing to be done, to start the impeachment. Proceedings.

Make no mistake, Dems in Congress are waiting on public response to Mueller to see if there is an outcry to push for impeachment hearings right now.
 
If you want impeachment, NOW IS THE TIME TO CALL your Reps (202) 224-3121 to demand it.
 
If you are trying to call your Reps in Washington to demand they move forward on impeachment and you can't get thru on the phone,
you need to google the number for your Reps local office numbers and call those.
 
Do not just email or tweet, it will not be as effective.
====================================
Replying to
 
Public outcry worked in Puerto Rico. Public outcry worked in Hong Kong.
 
It can work here, too.
:unsure:
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:

if all that were true the cowardly democrats would have started impeachment by now.

stop kidding yourself.

:P

Yeah, Trump will definitely be impeached any day now. I'll try not to hold my breath.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Rep. Jerry Nadler:
 
"Dir. Mueller, the President has repeatedly claimed that your report found that there was no obstruction, & that it completely & totally exonerated him.
 
But that is not what your report said, is it?"
 
Robert Mueller: "Correct, that is not what the report said."
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a rumour (CNN John Berman announced) that Trump is considering Devon Nunez to be in charge of all of the security agencies in the country.  :lol:

What next?  Jim Jordan in charge of Youth Development?  Matt Gaetz to head up the Science Department?

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mr6666 said:
 
 
The Justice Department decides NOT to pursue criminal charges against its leader, the Attorney General, or the Commerce secretary,
 
who both defied congressional subpoenas
 
 

The country that has turned into a joke run by a pair of clowns.

1ysfdn.jpghqdefault.jpg

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched some of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees hearings.  I also listened to the commentators on the four networks during the breaks as much as possible.  Also watched some of the political "news" programs on MSNBC and CNN last night and this morning.

My takeaway is the same of some of the "neutral" commentators and even some anti-Trump people.  The needle for impeachment did not move one way or the other.  I also heard Mueller emphatically state that he did NOT make a decision on whether or not Trump had committed a crime, nor did he exonerate him.  

These hearings, particularly Adam Schiff's performance at the opening of the Intelligence Committee hearing, did add some information which may prove beneficial in future hearings.  It almost appeared that Schiff and other Dems got together during the lunch break and developed a plan to get more out of Mueller by feeding him comments as questions that he could answer.

Schiff's committee also did better because it addressed the Russian interference in the election component, whereas the morning Judiciary hearing was about Trump and whether or not he committed crimes.

One comment I heard was that the Dem committee chairs need to act quickly and forcefully in forcing people such as Don McGahn to testify.  That may provide much more "evidence" that could be used to possibly impanel an impeachment inquiry committee.  Though I doubt it will convince many people.

Bottom line.  The only way to get Trump out of the White House is to defeat him in Nov. 2020.  The only way to win in Nov. 2020 is to convince the independents and others who voted for Trump in 2016 to vote Dem AND to get the Dem leaning voters who sat out or voted third party in 2016 to vote Dem.

Impeachment as an example or for posterity is not only meaningless, it is stupid.  We do not need martyrs, we need Democrats in elected offices in 2021.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I had some appointments this morning and about the only thing I saw early was Louie Gohmert

having his usual red face meltdown. I did watch more of it when I got home. I think Mueller had

problems hearing the questions and he kept his answers within the borders of his report which

frustrated both sides, though the Republicans seemed more annoyed than the Democrats. Yes,

Trump will lie and then double down on that lie. He's been doing it his whole life and his years

as president are just more of the same. 

It appeared to me that the GOPers were primarily playing to an audience of one - Trump.  They were auditioning for future appointments or for a good endorsement in the upcoming elections (or to prevent endorsement of an opponent).

Of course they were also playing to their individual constituents for votes in Nov. 2020.  The same as Lindsay Graham did turning his back on a man he previously considered a hero.

As for Mueller not answering, he warned them.  Then he pretty much did what he said he would do.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump gave speech in front of hoax presidential seal

The conservative group that organized Tuesday's event says it fired the staffer responsible.

 

The White House says it didn't know that an altered presidential seal featuring a two-headed eagle clutching golf clubs would be displayed at a speech by President Donald Trump this week. ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-gave-speech-front-hoax-presidential-seal-n1034676?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

:lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Trump gave speech in front of hoax presidential seal

The conservative group that organized Tuesday's event says it fired the staffer responsible.

 

The White House says it didn't know that an altered presidential seal featuring a two-headed eagle clutching golf clubs would be displayed at a speech by President Donald Trump this week. ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-gave-speech-front-hoax-presidential-seal-n1034676?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

:lol:

 

15 hours ago, noah80 said:

gol.png

Trump Revealing His New Presidential Seal!

The image almost resembles the official seal of the president, but a closer examination reveals alterations that seem to poke fun at the president’s golfing penchant and accusations that he has ties to Russia. 

The eagle has two heads instead of one — a symbol historically tied to empire and dominance. It closely resembles the bird on the Russian coat of arms and also appears on the flags of Serbia, Albania and Montenegro. Its left talons, rather than clasping 13 arrows, appear to clutch a set of golf clubs.

Fake presidential seal for a fake president

And nobody at the White House knows what the real presidential seal looks like cuz they don't have a real president. LOL

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just FYI.......

16 Marines arrested for smuggling undocumented immigrants, drug offenses

 

"......The release added that eight other Marines “were taken aside to be questioned on their involvement in alleged drug offenses unrelated to today’s arrests.”

Task and Purpose reported that the arrests are linked to the earlier bust of two Marine infantrymen, Lance Cpl. Byron Law and Lance Cpl. David Javier Salazar-Quintero, who on July 3 were arrested along with three undocumented immigrants with whom they were driving. Border Patrol had pulled the two over as they were allegedly attempting to earn cash by driving people from Mexico into the United States, according to a federal court complaint first reported by Quartz.

The Thursday morning arrest of the 16 Marines came after the Naval Criminal Investigative Service found information on Law and Salazar-Quintero’s phones, a source familiar with the matter told Task & Purpose.

The 16 Marines also came from the same unit that Law and Salazar-Quintero were assigned to, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, a 1st Marine Division spokeswoman told the news outlet......

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/454759-16-marines-arrested-for-smuggling-undocumented-immigrants-drug-offenses

:o

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
The Senate Intelligence Committee just released the results of its 2.5 year bipartisan investigation into 2016 Russia election interference.
 
This is just Volume I of SSCI’s report, focusing specifically on Russian cyber activity targeting election infrastructure.
 
The committee plans to release four other volumes on other topics in the coming months.
 
The 67-page report is here:
 
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

It appeared to me that the GOPers were primarily playing to an audience of one - Trump.  They were auditioning for future appointments or for a good endorsement in the upcoming elections (or to prevent endorsement of an opponent).

Of course they were also playing to their individual constituents for votes in Nov. 2020.  The same as Lindsay Graham did turning his back on a man he previously considered a hero.

As for Mueller not answering, he warned them.  Then he pretty much did what he said he would do.

He may have warned them, but they still kept on asking questions about things they

already knew he wouldn't answer. I watched part of the morning hearing, maybe about

an hour or an hour and a half. I usually muted the Dems and listened to the crazy

Republicans. I got a laugh out of the GOPer who asked Mueller if Trump could indicted

after he left office for obstruction of justice. Yes. Then he asked it a second time. Yes.

Score one for Bob. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact check: Trump falsely says Mueller corrected statement that he could be indicted once out of office

 

Facts First: Mueller did say that, unequivocally, and did not correct it. His correction was about a different statement he had made earlier.
Mueller was direct about whether Trump could be indicted after his presidency.
 
He was asked by Republican Rep. Ken Buck, "Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?" Mueller said, "Yes."
But Trump called a reporter "fake news" for asking him about this later in the day.
"Read his correction. Read his correction," he said.
 
But the correction was not about this. Rather, Mueller was clearing up an answer he gave to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning about why he did not indict Trump while in office.....
 
Ted. Lieu had asked him, "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"
 
Mueller responded, "That is correct." .......
 
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Fact check: Trump falsely says Mueller corrected statement that he could be indicted once out of office

 

Facts First: Mueller did say that, unequivocally, and did not correct it. His correction was about a different statement he had made earlier.
Mueller was direct about whether Trump could be indicted after his presidency.
 
He was asked by Republican Rep. Ken Buck, "Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?" Mueller said, "Yes."
But Trump called a reporter "fake news" for asking him about this later in the day.
"Read his correction. Read his correction," he said.
 
But the correction was not about this. Rather, Mueller was clearing up an answer he gave to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning about why he did not indict Trump while in office.....
 
Ted. Lieu had asked him, "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"
 
Mueller responded, "That is correct." .......
 

Again,  all of 'this' relates to how one interprets what Mueller says.      Dems interpret that as 'Trump can be indicted for those crimes he committed as President once he is longer President".

Repubs interpret it as theoretical;   An ex-President can be indicted after he is out of office.   

This is very similar to the confusion Mueller caused with the OLC opinion and the need for him to make a correction.    The can't indict for a theoretical reason (OLC opinion),  or can't because there isn't any indictable crimes.

  

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Again,  all of 'this' relates to how one interprets what Mueller says.      Dems interpret that as 'Trump can be indicted for those crimes he committed as President once he is longer President".

Repubs interpret it as theoretical;   An ex-President can be indicted after he is out of office.   

This is very similar to the confusion Mueller caused with the OLC opinion and the need for him to make a correction.    The can't indict for a theoretical reason (OLC opinion),  or can't because there isn't any indictable crimes.

  

  

 

It was theoretical.  "Could" you indict ...etc.

But Trump calls even that fake.  That is the point as I see it.  Not that this matters one way or another.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

It was theoretical.  "Could" you indict ...etc.

But Trump calls even that fake.  That is the point as I see it.  Not that this matters one way or another.

Trump is too stupid to understand the difference.   

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting portion from the Mueller report on obstruction and why they chose not to interview the president on said matters ...

(vol 11, pg 13)

We made that desicion in view of the substantial delay that such an investigate step would likely produce at a late stage of our investigation.  We also assessed that based on the significant body of evidence we had already obtained of the President's actions and his public and private statements describing or explaining those actions, we had sufficient evidence to understand relevant events and to make certain assessments without the President's testimony.

 

The report then goes on to outline how each of the issues of obstruction of justice meets the three criteria required for an indictment, the third being corrupt intent.  Though not conclusive one can surmise that they did not interview the President because they felt that they already had enough evidence of that corrupt intent.

 

One example used from pg 14 ...

Finally, a witness' false description of an encounter can imply consciousness of wrongdoing.  ... false exculpatory statements are evidence - of strong evidence - of guilt.

 

Geez ... has Tump ever falsely described any of these events?  Air Force One?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us