Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

New Donald Trump thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

You do realize we are in a pandemic correct Einstein?  

Whine if he pushes to re-open the economy because of the risk.  You do realize that state governments have the say about their own states as well as local governments such as Marion County?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-economic-lockdown-catastrophe-11588978716  Watch the video....listen to Schumer push for big government....yea...that's the answer.  Trust people that can't find their butt with both hands.

Whine about the current unemployment rate because people CAN'T work....(although I think you Liberals are celebrating the fact that people can't work....to hades with the economy if it means electing a senile, 40+ year federal employee, hands groping, back of neck breathing worthless old fart instead)

You are truly the Ultimate Whiner.....congrats on the dumbest post of the year.

 

Trump’s mismanagement allowed the pandemic to get as bad as it did.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

That is hilarious....and predictable coming from a liberal

 

The statement is truthful. I’ve seen a Great Recession and a Pandemic in my lifetime, all under and both due to GOP Presidents.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

The statement is truthful. I’ve seen a Great Recession and a Pandemic in my lifetime, all under and both due to GOP Presidents.

It is very true. 

Ive seen 4 GOP presidents and the two I can remember (Bush 43 and trump) have absolutely killed the economy.

20 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

That is hilarious....and predictable coming from a liberal

 

Uh. He was warned about this in January. Why didn't they start getting plans into place? To be on the safe side? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2020 at 11:33 AM, TrojanDad said:

You do realize we are in a pandemic correct Einstein?  

Whine if he pushes to re-open the economy because of the risk.  You do realize that state governments have the say about their own states as well as local governments such as Marion County?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-economic-lockdown-catastrophe-11588978716  Watch the video....listen to Schumer push for big government....yea...that's the answer.  Trust people that can't find their butt with both hands.

Whine about the current unemployment rate because people CAN'T work....(although I think you Liberals are celebrating the fact that people can't work....to hades with the economy if it means electing a senile, 40+ year federal employee, hands groping, back of neck breathing worthless old fart instead)

You are truly the Ultimate Whiner.....congrats on the dumbest post of the year.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/raulelizalde/2019/09/26/why-gdp-growth-is-slowing-and-why-neither-trump-nor-the-fed-can-fix-it/

The economy was slowing down before this. Trump's terrible decision making and lack of preparedness of Covid killed the economy quite quicker. 

 

First. 

My OG post was something similar you all posted about Obama non stop during his presidency.. Or did you just forget? 

2nd

I complained about re opening things.. Because it has nothing to do with our jobs and our health. It only had to do with his re election chances.. Notice the 4 state's that quickly opened (Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Texas).. 

3 of them are slowly trending blue (more young people moving in and more multi cultural..Tx and GA will be blue in 2024, SC 2028 ) and Florida a state he barely won in 2016. 

Third

As i stated earlier.  Trump's terrible decision making, his lack of preparedness on covid-19 hurt and killed the economy. If he was a better decision maker and took the covid-19 more serious. We wouldnt be in this situation. 

Lastly

Trump has had 20+ come out and accuse him of sexual misconduct, hes cheated on every single one of his wives, he can't speak in full sentences, he doesn't under stand the constitution or basic policy. Biden is only 3 years and some change older then Trump. So if Biden is an old "fart"..then what's Trump?

So if you have a problem with Biden's age, Bidens misconduct and his brain activity, you must have problems with Trump's age, Misconduct and Brain Activity too? If not...You are being hypocrite once again.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The canard about U.S. Presidents somehow having power over the U.S. economy just won't die:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/presidents-do-not-control-economies-or-gdp/

Quote

...

One of the great enduring stupidities of the American presidential cult is the belief, rooted in invincible ignorance, that the state of the U.S. economy at any given moment is a reflection of the intelligence and wisdom of the chief executive of the federal government and a result of the excellence or insufficiency of his administration. “Sure, Bill Clinton may have been an intern-diddling hillbilly and maybe even a violent rapist, but, man, my IRA kicked ass in the 1990s!”

It’s dumb, but it rules politics.

There’s an upscale version of this stupidity, one you will hear repeated ad nauseam on outlets like MSNBC and in the virtual pages of Forbes, which really ought to know better. Here’s Jere Glover praising candidate Donald Trump for asserting

Quote

the same thing I’ve been compiling cold, hard government data on since 1980: By crucial metrics like GDP, job creation, business investment and avoiding recessions, the economy does a lot better with Democrats in the White House than with Republicans. Just one eye-opening example: Nine of the last 10 recessions have been under Republicans.

If you have a little basic mathematical literacy, you’ll see some problems. A little political literacy will lead to your detecting several more. But let’s consider it.

Ten recessions back gets us to 1953. Since then, we have had 30 years of Democratic presidents and 35 years of Republican presidents; if recessions were randomly distributed, we’d still expect to see more of them coinciding with Republican presidencies simply because there have been more of them. In fact, most presidencies have coincided with one or more recessions.

On the specifics, the argument is weak. But how much should we make of that coincidence in general? Democrats plead on behalf of Barack Obama that he came into office during a terrible economic crisis, and that he and his policies should not be blamed for the weak growth and disappointing labor-market performance that marked his time in office. That’s not unfair. But the same could be said of, e.g., Gerald Ford, who had to deal with an OPEC-inflicted quadrupling of oil prices in 1973. Does anybody think Gerald Ford’s policies caused that? John Kennedy came into office at the tail end of a recession, which officially ended in February of his first year in office. Does any serious person believe that in the course of less than a month President Kennedy implemented policies that ended the recession? That would be a deeply silly contention. Even more juvenile is assuming that business cycles are inextricably linked to election cycles — without offering a lick of evidence or even a plausible mechanism for that being the case.

Recession-counting also ignores the fact that some recessions are the result of excellent public policy. The Reagan administration came into office with the country suffering from a serious inflation problem, and the tight monetary policy that the administration undertook to rein in that inflation produced a recession, as it was expected to. The recession was the price we paid for getting inflation under control. Inflation rose again toward the end of the Reagan-era boom, and once again, monetary tightening was used to control inflation at the cost of inflicting the mild recession that Bill Clinton rode to power. Oddly, Jere Glover ignores inflation. I wonder why.

Quote

People talk about ‘Reagan deficits’ and the ‘Clinton surplus,’ but it would be much more sensible to talk about the Tip O’Neill deficits and the Gingrich surplus.

Besides the most obvious economic stupidity, there is some pretty deep political stupidity at work here, too. For one thing, presidents have to deal with Congress, which actually does things like set tax rates and appropriate money. People talk about “Reagan deficits” and the “Clinton surplus,” but it would be much more sensible to talk about the Tip O’Neill deficits and the Gingrich surplus: Reagan wanted substantial spending cuts that were never implemented, and Clinton resisted even modest fiscal reform until he couldn’t. These things get a little more complicated than the R-vs.-D, black-hats/white-hats mode of analysis would suggest.

And, of course, there’s the hard-to-quantify fact that Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald J. Trump (“One of these things is not like the others / one of these things does not belong!”) pursued radically different economic policies. As, indeed, did Democratic presidents: There’s a great deal of daylight between Jack Kennedy’s economic thinking and Barack Obama’s. On the GOP side, Ike was a Republican throwback who pursued a policy agenda that he himself described as “progressive” while keeping an eye on the nickels and dimes, and he presided over a federal government that, in 1957, saw slightly lower taxes than we have today, three times the military spending, and a modest budget surplus. (Modern conservatives could live with a progressive like that, I think.) Nixon was a Wilsonian statist who imposed price controls on the economy. Reagan was a libertarian optimist who put growth over balanced budgets. Trump is an economic illiterate with no substantive policy agenda at all.

But he will crow about that 3.3 percent GDP growth last quarter, and will insist that it is the result of his policies. Which of those policies, I wonder? He may get his tax cut, but, for the moment, Trump has done almost nothing of substance on the economy, and what his administration has done — a bit of excellent regulatory reform — is unlikely to affect growth dramatically in the short term. Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff. When you hear someone crediting a president with an economic boom or strong wage growth, ask them in some detail about the actual mechanism they believe to be at work, some plausible chain of causality. You’ll rarely get a satisfying answer.

Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff.

Presidents are one small piece of the public-policy picture — and public policy as a whole is only a small part of what shapes and moves a complex modern economy. We tend toward a destructively immature and ahistorical view: The regulatory reforms that made the Internet boom of the Clinton years began decades before; the confluence of terrible policies that created the subprime meltdown and financial crisis of 2008–09 began in the 1930s, with housing and banking reforms and regulatory development occurring under presidents and Congresses of both parties in ways that would frustrate any intellectually rigorous attempt at laying blame on a partisan basis. The Asian currency crisis of the Clinton years, Communist aggression and Mideast conflict in Eisenhower’s time, the terrorist attacks during George W. Bush’s first year in office: None of these was the result of some decision taken in the White House. George W. Bush wanted to be a school reformer and economic booster, not a president overseeing a long and thankless campaign against distant desert savages. But history doesn’t wait for anybody to vote on it. That affects everything, including the economy.

The belief that GDP growth or this month’s jobs report provides a meaningful judgment on the performance of the president isn’t economics — it’s superstition. It is the modern version of the ancient belief that a crop failure means that the king has displeased the rain god or the wheat goddess. It is a primitive disposition from which we should liberate ourselves — and could, if we were willing to do the hard work of citizenship rather than take our ease in lazy partisanship.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2020 at 5:06 PM, DanteEstonia said:

Trump’s mismanagement allowed the pandemic to get as bad as it did.

Yet he was the racist President because he enacted a travel ban that affected New York and San Francisco 's Chinese new year celebration.   In case you forgot.

On 5/8/2020 at 1:41 PM, gonzoron said:

Doesn't address the point brought forth in the picture.

The point where your meme opines that Trump lied?  I fail to make that connection.  Flynn wasn't totally forthcoming with the Vice President, which was a breach of trust with your employer.  He also had plead guilty to the FBI for lying.  The fact that was a setup didn't come to absolute light until recently.  So, SF doesn't make the same connection as your meme post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

House intel transcripts declassified and released. Every Obama administration official testified under oath that they had no evidence of Trump / Russia collusion. Crowd strike also testified that they had no evidence of the Russians hacking the DNC servers or the e-mail of John Podesta.

 

  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats and their mainstream media propaganda machine lied non stop for nearly three years. Damn near every Democrat on this forum were whipped into a frenzy. Hilarious!

 

  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

No one from GID made your thread sheriff as part of your retirement package. 

One never knows when that announcement is forthcoming from Admin. It pays to be ready for it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-on-michael-flynn-11589148648

Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn. Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/senator-grassley-fbi-abused-governmental-power-ways

GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley is taking on the media, the Justice Department and even President Obama over the federal government's handling of the Michael Flynn case.

We’ve “seen a lot of denial from some quarters in the media about the information that’s been released,” Grassley, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee said Monday in a floor speech.

Grassley spoke in the aftermath of a surprising recent turn of events in which newly declassified information led Flynn to withdraw a guilty plea in the federal government's Russia collusion case, which was followed last week by Attorney General William Barr saying the Justice Department has moved to drop the case. 

Among the revelations was that FBI agents, in the early days of the Trump administration, went beyond the scope of federal government's case to interview the then-White House national security adviser. Flynn later, in a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents.

Grassley, in the speech, commended Barr and acting Office of the Director of National Intelligence acting Director Richard Grenell for making public information that had been carefully guarded for upwards of two years.

The senator also questioned purported comments made last week by President Obama cautioning that the rule of law may be at risk following the Justice Department's recommendation to drop the case against Flynn, a retired lieutenant Army general.

“I believe the opposite is true," he said. "The rule of law is at risk if the federal government can get away with violating the constitution to do what they did to Lt. Gen. Flynn.”

Grassley then asked why the former president would choose to comment on the dropping of the case against Flynn, but not the significant evidence that government directors under his control lied and manipulated processes at every turn of the investigation into him.

“I’ve heard no comment from Mr. Obama about independent inspector general findings that Andrew McCabe lied under oath to federal investigators multiple times," said Grassley, referring to the former FBI deputy director.

"Or about how DOJ prosecutors falsely told the court that they had produced all Brady material to Flynn. Or when the federal government surveilled an American citizen connected to the Trump campaign without probable cause and based on intelligence the FBI knew was questionable at best,” Grassley continued.

Grassley hinted that the evidence released last week is so significant in its implications of top-tier government corruption that, “it’s time we asked: what did Obama and Biden know and when did they know it?”

For the duration of his remarks, Grassley highlights some of the governmental mismanagement of the Flynn and Russia investigations. He draws a comprehensive narrative of the FBI’s misdeeds as they relate to the continued probing and attempted destruction of a three star general, and apparent manipulation of materials relevant to the investigation.

“Under (former FBI Director James) Comey’s leadership, the FBI abused governmental power in ways the Founders and Framers feared most. The Russia investigation is a textbook example of what not to do,” he said. “At every step of the investigation, the government sought evidence to advance it, never got the evidence they needed, and advanced the investigation anyway.”

Grassley also argued the media has failed to accurately cover the framing for special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, the basis of which was a conversation between President Trump and Comey about wrapping up the investigation into Flynn.

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/what-did-obama-know-and-when-did-he-know-it/91127/

What did President Obama know and when did he know it? That famous formulation is emerging as the question in the wake of new disclosures in respect of a meeting that took place inside the Oval Office in the closing days of Mr. Obama’s presidency. The meeting included not only his national security adviser, Susan Rice, and the head of the FBI, James Comey, but also Vice President Biden, now the prospective Democratic nominee.

This is laid out in, among other places, a dispatch by Mollie Hemingway in the Federalist. Ms. Hemingway reckons the meeting is turning out to be, as her headline puts it, “key” to the “entire anti-Trump operation” launched two weeks before the end of the Obama administration. She’s not the only one laying this out; a veteran of the Sun, Eli Lake, now of Bloomberg, has been all over the story; the Wall Street Journal, as well.

Ms. Hemingway presents a terrific timeline. It starts on January 4, 2017, at a time when the FBI was scrambling, as the Federalist’s scribe puts it, to reopen a case against General Flynn. The January 5 meeting started as a briefing for the President and also included Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, the CIA director, John Brennan, and the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

After the briefing, Ms. Hemingway reports, the intelligence chiefs were dismissed. Ms. Yates and Mr. Comey “were asked to stay.” Writes Mrs. Hemingway: “Not only did Obama give his guidance about how to perpetuate the Russia collusion theory investigations, he also talked about Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to both Comey and Yates.”

“Interestingly,” writes Ms. Hemingway, Messrs. Clapper and Comey and Ms. Yates “all said that they did not brief Obama about these phone calls.” She reckons Ms. Rice “likely” did. At the meeting, Ms. Hemingway notes, Mr. Comey “mentions the Logan Act.” Fifteen days later, Ms. Rice would send herself what Ms. Hemingway calls a “bizarre” email claiming that Mr. Obama wanted everything to be done “by the book.”

In the ensuing weeks, a series of leaks rocked the incoming Trump administration. Grizzled newspapermen shook their heads in amazement at such a cataract of leaks against a new administration. By February 13, writes Ms. Hemingway, “the operation finally succeeded in getting Flynn fired and rendering him unable to review the operations against the Trump campaign, Trump transition team, and Trump administration.”

It’s not our intention here to suggest that Mr. Obama, or anyone else at his meeting, broke the law. That may turn out to be the case, but it is not our point here. It’s enough for us — it’s just gobsmacking — that a sitting president of America hosted in his office a meeting that appears designed to undermine the man who will, two weeks hence, succeed him in the highest office in the land.

All the more so when, as seems to be the case, the outgoing vice president is present at the meeting and when the news breaks in the midst of an election year in which the erstwhile vice president is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for president. What kind of Shakespeare or Dante could come up with such a fantastic plot? It’s hard to think of anyone other than the Muse of History.

“What did the president know and when did he know it?” is the phrase that history offers up. It was first uttered during Senator Sam Ervin’s Watergate hearings by Senator Howard Baker, Republican of Tennessee. It starts to look ever more apt as investigators, put on the case by Attorney General Barr, finally start to focus on who it was who laid the long train of powder against the incoming Trump administration.

JUST IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO READ THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08/obama-biden-oval-office-meeting-on-january-5-was-key-to-entire-anti-trump-operation/

Information released in the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case it brought against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn confirms the significance of a January 5, 2017, meeting at the Obama White House. It was at this meeting that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration’s utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.

“President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote in an unusual email to herself about the meeting that was also attended by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director James Comey, and Vice President Joe Biden.

A clearer picture is emerging of the drastic steps that were taken to accomplish Obama’s goal in the following weeks and months. Shortly thereafter, high-level operatives began intensely leaking selective information supporting a supposed Russia-Trump conspiracy theory, the incoming National Security Advisor was ambushed, and the incoming Attorney General was forced to recuse himself from oversight of investigations of President Trump. At each major point in the operation, explosive media leaks were a key strategy in the operation to take down Trump.

Not only was information on Russia not fully shared with the incoming Trump team, as Obama directs, the leaks and ambushes made the transition chaotic, scared quality individuals away from working in the administration, made effective governance almost impossible, and materially damaged national security. When Comey was finally fired on May 9, in part for his duplicitousness regarding his handling of the Russia collusion theory, he orchestrated the launch of a Special Counsel probe that continued his efforts for another two years. That probe ended with Mueller finding no evidence of any American colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election, much less Trump or anyone connected to him.

An analysis of the timeline from early 2017 shows a clear pattern of behavior from the federal officials running the collusion operation against the Trump campaign. It also shows how essential media leaks were to their strategy to sideline key law enforcement and intelligence officials and cripple the ability of the incoming Trump administration to run the country.

Here’s a timeline of the key moments and news articles of the efforts, per Obama’s direction, to prevent the Trump administration from learning about the FBI’s operation against it.

January 4: Following the closure of a pretextually dubious and politically motivated FBI investigation of Flynn at the beginning of January, the leadership of the FBI scrambled to reopen a case against Flynn, the man who in his role as National Security Advisor would have to review their Russia collusion investigation. FBI officials openly discussed their concern about briefing the veteran intelligence official on what they had done to the Trump campaign and transition team and what they were planning to do to the incoming Trump administration. Flynn had to be dealt with. The FBI’s top counterintelligence official would later memorialize discussions about the FBI’s attempts to “get [Flynn] fired.” No reopening was needed, they determined, when they discovered they had failed to close the previous investigation. They found this mistake “amazing” and “serendipitously good” and said “our utter incompetence actually helps us.” Even more noteworthy were texts from FBI’s #2 counterintelligence official Peter Strzok to FBI lawyer Lisa Page noting that the “7th floor,” a reference to Comey and his deputy director Andrew McCabe, was running the show.

January 5: Yates, Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper briefed Obama on Russia-related matters in the Oval Office. Biden and Rice also attended. After the Obama briefing, the intelligence chiefs who would be leaving at the end of the term were dismissed and Yates and Comey, who would continue in the Trump administration, were asked to stay. Not only did Obama give his guidance about how to perpetuate the Russia collusion theory investigations, he also talked about Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to both Comey and Yates. Interestingly, Clapper, Comey, and Yates all said that they did not brief Obama about these phone calls. Clapper testified he did not brief Obama on the calls, Yates learned about the calls from Obama himself during that meeting, and Comey also testified he didn’t brief Obama about the calls, even though the intelligence was an FBI product. Rice, who publicly lied but later admitted under oath to her widespread use of unmasked intelligence at the end of the Obama administration, likely briefed Obama on the calls and would have had access to the intelligence. Comey mentions the Logan Act at this meeting.

It was this meeting that Rice memorialized in a bizarre inauguration-day email to herself that claimed Obama told the gathered to do everything “by the book.” But Rice also noted in her email that the key point of discussion in that meeting was whether and how to withhold national security information, likely including details of the investigation into Trump himself, from the incoming Trump national security team.

January 6: An ostensibly similar briefing about Russian interference efforts during the 2016 campaign was given to President-elect Trump. After that briefing, Comey privately briefed Trump on the most salacious and absurd “pee tape” allegation in the Christopher Steele dossier, a document the FBI had already used to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page. Comey told Trump he was telling him because CNN was looking for any reason it could find to publish a story about Russia having compromising information on him, and he wanted to warn Trump about it. He did not mention the dossier was completely unverified or that it was the product of a secretly funded operation by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee.

January 10: In an amazing coincidence, CNN found the excuse to publish the Russia claims after a high-level Obama intelligence operative leaked that Comey had briefed Trump about the dossier. This selective leak, which was credulously accepted by CNN reporters Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein, may have been the most important step in the operation to harm the incoming Trump administration. The leak of the briefing of Trump was used to legitimize a ridiculous dossier full of allegations the FBI knew to be false that multiple news organizations had previously refused to report on for lack of substantiation, and created a cloud of suspicion over Trump’s campaign and administration by insinuating he was being blackmailed by Russia.

January 12: The next part of the strategy was the explosive leak to David Ignatius of the Washington Post to legitimize the use against Flynn of the Logan Act, a likely unconstitutional 1799 law prohibiting private individuals, not public incoming national security advisors, from discussing foreign policy with foreign governments. Ignatius accepted the leak from the Obama official. He wrote that Flynn had called Kislyak. “What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about ‘disputes’ with the United States. Was its spirit violated?” Flynn’s routine and appropriate phone call became fodder for a developing grand conspiracy theory of Russia collusion. In discussions with investigators, both DOJ’s Mary McCord and Comey conspicuously cite this Ignatius column as somehow meaningful in the approach they would take with Flynn. “Nothing, to my mind, happens until the 13th of January, when David Ignatius publishes a column that contains a reference to communication Michael Flynn had with the Russians. That was on the 13th of January,” Comey said of the column that ran online on January 12. In fact, quite a bit had happened at the FBI prior to that leak, with much conversation about how to utilize the Logan Act against Flynn. And the leak-fueled Ignatius column would later be used by FBI officials to justify an illegal ambush interview of Flynn in the White House.

January 23: Another important criminal leak was given to Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller of the Washington Post, also based on criminal leaks. Their article, headlined “FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit,” was intended to make Flynn feel safe and put him at ease about the FBI stance on those calls the day before they planned to ambush him in an interview. The article was used to publicize false information when it said, “Although Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were listened to, Flynn himself is not the active target of an investigation, U.S. officials said.” In fact, emails prior to this date confirm Flynn was their prime target. This article was later cited by McCabe as the reason why they were justified in concealing from Flynn the real purpose of their interview. Flynn later asked McCabe if he knew how all the information about his phone calls had been made public and whether it had been leaked. Any potential response from McCabe to Flynn has been redacted from his own notes about the conversation.

January 24: Comey later admitted he broke every protocol to send agents to interview Flynn and try to catch him in a lie. FBI officials strategized how to keep Flynn from knowing he was a target of the investigation or asking for an attorney to represent him in the interview. The January 23 Washington Post article, which falsely stated that Flynn was not an FBI target, was key to that strategy. Though the interviewing agents said they could detect no “tells” indicating he lied, and he carefully phrased everything in the interview, he later was induced to plead guilty to lying in this interview. Ostensibly because White House officials downplayed the Kislyak phone calls, presumably in light of what Flynn had told them about the calls, Yates would go to the White House the next day and insinuate Flynn should probably be fired.

February 9: The strategy to get Flynn fired didn’t immediately work so another leak was deployed to Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post. That article, headline “National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say,” was sourced to people who happened to share senior FBI leadership’s views on the Logan Act. This article was also based on criminal leaks of top secret information of phone call intercepts and laid out the FBI’s case for why Flynn’s contacts with a foreign adversary were a problem. The fact that such phone calls are routine, not to mention Flynn’s case that improved relations with Russia in a world where China, North Korea, and Iran were posing increasing threats, never made it into these articles for context.

February 13: The operation finally succeeded in getting Flynn fired and rendering him unable to review the operations against the Trump campaign, Trump transition team, and Trump administration.

March 1: Flynn was the first obstacle who had to be overcome. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was the next. The Trump loyalist with a strong Department of Justice background would also need to be briefed on the anti-Trump efforts unless he could be sidelined. Comey admitted that early in Sessions’ tenure, he deliberately hid Russia-related information from Sessions because, “it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations.” To secure that recusal, yet another leak was deployed to the Washington Post’s Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller. The leak was intended to tar Sessions as a secret Russian agent and was dramatically spun as “Sessions Spoke Twice To Russian Envoy: Revelation contradicts his testimony at confirmation hearing.” One meeting was in passing and the other was in his function as a United States Senator, but the hysteria was such that the Post authors could get away with suggesting  Sessions was too compromised to oversee the Department of Justice’s counterintelligence operations involving Russia. It is perhaps worth noting that the Special Counsel idea was pushed in this article.

March 2: Sessions recused himself from oversight of the FBI’s anti-Trump operation, providing no meaningful oversight to an operation that would be spun into a Special Counsel by mid-May. With the removal of Trump’s National Security Advisor and his Attorney General, there was no longer any chance of Trump loyalists discovering what Obama holdovers at the FBI were actually doing to get Trump thrown out of office. After Trump fired Comey for managerial incompetence on May 9, deceptively edited and misleading leaks to the New York Times ordered by Comey himself were used to gin up a Special Counsel run exclusively by left-wing anti-Trump partisans who continued the operation without any meaningful oversight for another two years.

This stunning operation was not just a typical battle between political foes, nor merely an example of media bias against political enemies. Instead, this entire operation was a deliberate and direct attack on the foundation of American governance. In light of the newly declassified documents released in recent days, it is clear that understanding what happened in that January 5 Oval Office meeting is essential to understanding the full scope and breadth of the corrupt operation against the Trump administration. It is long past time for lawmakers in Congress who are actually interested in oversight of the federal government and the media to demand answers about what really happened in that meeting from every single participant, including Obama and Biden.

 
 
The corruption SF thinks the establishment Democrat party (including the establishment Republicans) have been trying to keep hidden from the American people......Stunning..
  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nypost.com/2020/05/10/michael-flynn-fiasco-will-reveal-obamas-truth-devine/

No wonder Barack Obama is “pretty darn invested” in making sure Donald Trump doesn’t win re-election. The former president knows his Teflon coating is wearing thin.

With his nemesis, Gen. Michael Flynn, suddenly exonerated, he also knows that Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are closing in on the truth of his role in the whole dirty Russia-collusion lie.

“There’s more to come,” President Trump told “Fox & Friends” on Friday, the day after the Justice Department dismissed its case against Flynn, having found that the FBI had laid a “perjury trap” for his short-lived national security adviser.

“I believe [Obama] and Biden … Sleepy Joe was involved in this also, very much.”

The only way to ensure that the truth about Obama never sees the light of day is to defeat Trump in November, even if all the Democrats have for a candidate is a sleepy guy in a basement.

“We got to make this happen,” Obama said Friday in a vehement conference call with 3,000 supporters.

The call was leaked to Yahoo News, in Obama’s first public declaration of war against Trump.

What brought him out of the shadows was the collapse of the case against Flynn.

“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Obama raged, although Flynn was not charged with perjury and plenty of people, including Bill Clinton, have escaped “scot-free” after lying under oath.

Obama said the Flynn case means “our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

No, the rule of law was trashed long ago on his watch.

It was trashed when the collusion hoax was hatched in the dying days of his administration.

It was trashed when he planted the seeds of doubt with then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates about Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador.

It was trashed by the FBI’s targeted destruction of Flynn, who they knew was innocent from the start.

It was trashed when the Steele dossier, which we now know was Russian disinformation paid for by the Clinton campaign, was passed off by the FBI and CIA as legitimate intelligence to damage Trump and cover their own misdeeds.

Obama’s henchmen knew there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and, under oath, behind closed doors, they told the House Intelligence Committee so, yet the lie they let loose kept running.

Flynn was a marked man from the moment Obama fired him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, ostensibly for “insubordination.”

Really, it was because Flynn, the most effective intelligence officer of his generation, had embarrassed Obama by refusing to go along with the “big lie” that the Islamist enemy was defeated.

In 2014, after Obama dismissed ISIS as a terrorist “JV team,” Flynn warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that the jihadist group was a growing threat. He was fired soon afterward.

 

“Frankly, at the White House, it didn’t meet the narrative,” he later told the New York Times.

Obama held onto his grudge against Flynn, a war hero in Iraq and Afghanistan, the man who, with another heroic general fired by Obama, Stan McChrystal, is credited with saving America from half a dozen terrorist attacks.

After Trump won the 2016 election, Obama went to the trouble repeatedly of warning him not to hire Flynn as his national security adviser.

Within a few weeks of taking the job with the new Trump administration, Flynn was forced to resign, after malicious leaks from intelligence operatives about a phone conversation with the then-Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

The man who probably took the greatest delight in blackening Flynn’s reputation was Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

In a July 17, 2017, interview with the House Intelligence Committee during its ill-fated Russia-collusion probe, Clapper claimed Flynn’s “strident views about ISIS” weren’t the reason for his dismissal by Obama. It was his “erratic management style [and] the infamous Flynn facts where General Flynn was convinced that the [Iranians] were behind the Benghazi attack.”

Clapper said he was “disturbed” about Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak, which had the effect of “essentially neutering — my characterization — the sanctions [against Russia] that had just been imposed [by the Obama administration].”

But that wasn’t true. There was “nothing wrong” with the call, Barr told CBS last week. “In fact, it was laudable.”

As a paid CNN contributor, Clapper repeatedly declared, with all the authority his former job carried, that Trump was a Russian “asset.”

Yet under oath, he told the Intelligence Committee, “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

It’s a tawdry story. The Trump presidency was booby-trapped from Day One by the Obama administration’s abuse of the rule of law.

FYI - Flynn wasn't charged with perjury.....You would think the former President would know that.......

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, swordfish said:

https://nypost.com/2020/05/10/michael-flynn-fiasco-will-reveal-obamas-truth-devine/

No wonder Barack Obama is “pretty darn invested” in making sure Donald Trump doesn’t win re-election. The former president knows his Teflon coating is wearing thin.

With his nemesis, Gen. Michael Flynn, suddenly exonerated, he also knows that Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are closing in on the truth of his role in the whole dirty Russia-collusion lie.

“There’s more to come,” President Trump told “Fox & Friends” on Friday, the day after the Justice Department dismissed its case against Flynn, having found that the FBI had laid a “perjury trap” for his short-lived national security adviser.

“I believe [Obama] and Biden … Sleepy Joe was involved in this also, very much.”

The only way to ensure that the truth about Obama never sees the light of day is to defeat Trump in November, even if all the Democrats have for a candidate is a sleepy guy in a basement.

“We got to make this happen,” Obama said Friday in a vehement conference call with 3,000 supporters.

The call was leaked to Yahoo News, in Obama’s first public declaration of war against Trump.

What brought him out of the shadows was the collapse of the case against Flynn.

“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Obama raged, although Flynn was not charged with perjury and plenty of people, including Bill Clinton, have escaped “scot-free” after lying under oath.

Obama said the Flynn case means “our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

No, the rule of law was trashed long ago on his watch.

It was trashed when the collusion hoax was hatched in the dying days of his administration.

It was trashed when he planted the seeds of doubt with then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates about Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador.

It was trashed by the FBI’s targeted destruction of Flynn, who they knew was innocent from the start.

It was trashed when the Steele dossier, which we now know was Russian disinformation paid for by the Clinton campaign, was passed off by the FBI and CIA as legitimate intelligence to damage Trump and cover their own misdeeds.

Obama’s henchmen knew there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and, under oath, behind closed doors, they told the House Intelligence Committee so, yet the lie they let loose kept running.

Flynn was a marked man from the moment Obama fired him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, ostensibly for “insubordination.”

Really, it was because Flynn, the most effective intelligence officer of his generation, had embarrassed Obama by refusing to go along with the “big lie” that the Islamist enemy was defeated.

In 2014, after Obama dismissed ISIS as a terrorist “JV team,” Flynn warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that the jihadist group was a growing threat. He was fired soon afterward.

 

“Frankly, at the White House, it didn’t meet the narrative,” he later told the New York Times.

Obama held onto his grudge against Flynn, a war hero in Iraq and Afghanistan, the man who, with another heroic general fired by Obama, Stan McChrystal, is credited with saving America from half a dozen terrorist attacks.

After Trump won the 2016 election, Obama went to the trouble repeatedly of warning him not to hire Flynn as his national security adviser.

Within a few weeks of taking the job with the new Trump administration, Flynn was forced to resign, after malicious leaks from intelligence operatives about a phone conversation with the then-Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

The man who probably took the greatest delight in blackening Flynn’s reputation was Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

In a July 17, 2017, interview with the House Intelligence Committee during its ill-fated Russia-collusion probe, Clapper claimed Flynn’s “strident views about ISIS” weren’t the reason for his dismissal by Obama. It was his “erratic management style [and] the infamous Flynn facts where General Flynn was convinced that the [Iranians] were behind the Benghazi attack.”

Clapper said he was “disturbed” about Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak, which had the effect of “essentially neutering — my characterization — the sanctions [against Russia] that had just been imposed [by the Obama administration].”

But that wasn’t true. There was “nothing wrong” with the call, Barr told CBS last week. “In fact, it was laudable.”

As a paid CNN contributor, Clapper repeatedly declared, with all the authority his former job carried, that Trump was a Russian “asset.”

Yet under oath, he told the Intelligence Committee, “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

It’s a tawdry story. The Trump presidency was booby-trapped from Day One by the Obama administration’s abuse of the rule of law.

FYI - Flynn wasn't charged with perjury.....You would think the former President would know that.......

 

 

 

Dude. 

Mike Flynn said he lied to the FBI. 

Trump fired him cause Flynn lied to Pence. 

Barr is running a a reckless DOJ. Hell be canned in Jan when biden takes over and wouldn't be shocked if he ends up facing federal crimes. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2020 at 11:17 PM, gonzoron said:

Got anything concerning Trump? This is his thread.

Ahh yes. What numb skull complained that we should only talk about the person whose name is in the heading of the thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2020 at 12:35 PM, TrojanDad said:

Uh, he certainly received mixed messages.......and can you show me where Dem leaders in Congress, Senate, presidential candidates, etc. were vocal about the need to get plans in place.....to be on the safe side?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-disease-official-anthony-fauci-risk-of-coronavirus-in-u-s-is-minuscule-skip-mask-and-wash-hands/4787209002/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-nothing-to-worry-about/

During a Feb. 29, 2020, interview, Dr. Fauci said that at that time and under the circumstances pertaining to that date, Americans didn't need to change their behavior patterns.

CDC underestimated the threat

https://nypost.com/2020/03/27/cdc-underestimated-threat-from-coronavirus-botched-response-report/

In a message he sent on Jan. 28, when the CDC had confirmed five cases of the coronavirus, he acknowledged the pathogen posed “a very serious public health threat.” But he assured them “the virus is not spreading in the U.S. at this time,” though that may not have been true, according to the report. Trevor Bedford, an epidemiologist in Seattle, has said he believed the virus could have begun circulating in Washington state immediately after a traveler arrived in mid-January.  The CDC told ProPublica that Redfield’s comments were based on the data available at the time.

Trump issued the travel ban with China on Jan. 31.  Did he get full support from the Dem's or was he called racist, etc? By some of them?  Remember Pelosi's actions?  Left leaning MSM support him???

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-media-change-tune-trump-attacks-coronavirus-china-travel-ban

Within hours of President Trump's decision to restrict travel from China on Jan. 31, top Democrats and media figures immediately derided the move as unnecessary and xenophobic -- and they are now beating a hasty retreat from that position as the coronavirus continues to ravage the economy and cause scores of deaths. Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden led the way, quickly attacking what he called Trump's "record of hysteria, xenophobia and fear-mongering" after the travel restrictions were announced, and arguing that Trump "is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency." Biden, on Wednesday, didn't criticize the travel ban in any way, and instead accused Trump of "downplaying" the virus early on in remarks to Fox News. "I had Biden calling me xenophobic," Trump told Fox News' "Hannity" on March 26. "He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in."

In March, another Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., conspicuously insisted at a Fox News town hall that he wouldn't consider closing the U.S. border to prevent the spread of coronavirus, before condemning what he called the president's xenophobia. The Vermont senator has since taken to promoting "Medicare-for-All" and workers' rights amid the outbreak, while deferring to health experts on border closings. For many news outlets, the about-face has been stark. A Jan. 31 article in The New York Times quoted epidemiologist Dr. Michael Osterholm as saying that Trump's decision to restrict travel from China was "more of an emotional or political reaction."

The Washington Post ran a story quoting a Chinese official asking for "empathy" and slamming the White House for acting "in disregard of WHO [World Health Organization] recommendation against travel restrictions."

But to the Dem's defense, I guess they were pretty busy in January..............

On Jan. 15, when the first American with coronavirus returned from China, House Democrats were ceremoniously carrying their articles of impeachment against Trump to the Senate. (The president was acquitted overwhelmingly on each article of impeachment.)

 

I guess it's easier to throw rocks, then roll up your sleeves, get to work and help out...........

https://www.axios.com/trump-coronavirus-warnings-46ea8006-2e19-4810-82c1-0f10f4f9aa97.html

Warned 10 times. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-coronavirus-vaccine-researcher-covid-19-cure-60-minutes/

Sad. 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/23/house-democrats-stimulus-senate-coronavirus-145388

Ahh yes.. Those do nothing democrats

 

 

Trump was overwhelming saved from impeachment...barely over 50 percent isn't overwhelmingly. 

 

Yawn. It feels like im debating a 7 year old. How do you breathe and walk at same time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

 

Yawn. It feels like im debating a 7 year old. How do you breathe and walk at same time?

 

Many here feel the same about "debating" with you, UW.  Funny how you let loose with accusations of people performing fellatio on Mr. Trump if given the chance yet with your rhetoric it's clear you would blow any Democrat that crosses your path, especially  one that promises you more "free stuff".

And you conveniently ignore the facts surrounding the Democrats similar laissez-faire early reactions to the coronavirus, especially when the likes of Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders just used the news to criticize and score political points against Mr. Trump. Just more uni-party nonsense, and you cheer it on.

Hypocrite.

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

You don’t need your posse....stand up on your own 2 feet.

Says the guy who needs his posse to come to his defense on the post before you say this. Troj and Mudhole sittin' in a tree.

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...