Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

16 hours ago, Zontar said:

like Mueller, there's nothing.

Except Mueller outlined many crimes. 

47 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Except Mueller outlined many crimes. 

If there were crimes they would have built a serious impeachment case with genuine gravity on them instead of the current gong show.

The report itself says if they could have exonerated the president they would have just they couldn't, aka crimes. 

Why they never pursued impeachment I don't know, probably because of the sham trials the senate was always going to do, but just because they didn't act on the thing doesn't mean there was nothing there. The failure to act on it is just an example of the Democrats being awful too.

See that's your problem. You pick horrible examples to prove your points. Be better.

Except, as in the Clinton trial, with real crimes and recomendations for indictments it wouldn't be a sham trial. Entire tenor of the process would be different. Senators would start worrying job security. Winking at obnoxious behaviour by POTUS is one thing to be seen defending criminality in an election year is quite another.

Which crimes did clinton have?

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Which crimes did clinton have?

The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

 

sidetracked.

Trump approves.

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

 

I know what they were, I'm trying to get the other guy to offer up what he thinks actually happened. It's sure to be a good story.

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

I know what they were, I'm trying to get the other guy to offer up what he thinks actually happened. It's sure to be a good story.

Nah- when asked for proof, the conversation gets ignored.

 

Still awaiting the evidence of millions of illegals voting.

The Walrus lobes a grenade and it lands right on Trumps defence................Turtle seen making a dive for his shell

 

11 hours ago, bustamente said:

The Walrus lobes a grenade and it lands right on Trumps defence................Turtle seen making a dive for his shell

 

Coordinated media leak and book promo in middle of impeachment trial whose hail mary bombshell is Bolton saying the same thing that has already been discredited. 

And they want people not be cynical and take the whole process seriously.

17 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Coordinated media leak and book promo in middle of impeachment trial whose hail mary bombshell is Bolton saying the same thing that has already been discredited. 

And they want people not be cynical and take the whole process seriously.

Read the transcript, read the transcript.................except what they released is not the transcript which was moved to a classified server, Trump and his cronies should be saying "read the memorandum" 

35 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Coordinated media leak and book promo in middle of impeachment trial whose hail mary bombshell is Bolton saying the same thing that has already been discredited. 

And they want people not be cynical and take the whole process seriously.

Whats been discredited?  

So now its coming out that Trump knew Bolton's manuscript a few days before the hit on the Iran General, which warhawk Bolton always wanted.  Hmmmm  All these people that have the goods on Trump (which seems like a lot) can submit their list of demands I guess.

Plus, reporting that some GOP Senators are pisssed off at the White House for letting them be blindsided by Bolton when they knew all about the book.

50 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Coordinated media leak and book promo in middle of impeachment trial whose hail mary bombshell is Bolton saying the same thing that has already been discredited. 

Discredited by who? Hannity?

10 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Discredited by who? Hannity?

If he says the bombshell that Trump linked aid to favours is discredited he's 1) lying 2) trolling 3) insane.   I suppose insanity isnt a reason to disallow someone posting but the other two would be youd think lol

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

If he says the bombshell that Trump linked aid to favours is discredited he's 1) lying 2) trolling 3) insane.   I suppose insanity isnt a reason to disallow someone posting but the other two would be youd think lol

Maybe, but I like to give @Zontar a chance to provide some evidence. If it holds water, I am open to changing my mind.

Just now, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Maybe, but I like to give @Zontar a chance to provide some evidence. If it holds water, I am open to changing my mind.

Yeah but isnt Bolton's bombshell that Trump aid was linked to favours, the whole point of his impeachment?  Saying its been discredited it pure idiocy.  Unless I missed yet another bombshell....   

1 hour ago, Zontar said:

Coordinated media leak and book promo in middle of impeachment trial whose hail mary bombshell is Bolton saying the same thing that has already been discredited. 

Just because the information leak was used to to promote a book doesn't make it any less true... 

It smacks of opportunism, money over country, but it still doesn't make it any less true.

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

The WH apparently had Bolton's manuscript at the end of December and knew what was going to be in it, explains why Trump was on Fox shows saying that executive privilege would be invoked.

1 minute ago, bustamente said:

The WH apparently had Bolton's manuscript at the end of December and knew what was going to be in it, explains why Trump was on Fox shows saying that executive privilege would be invoked.

Cool thing I read recently is that Justice Roberts might be able to issue a quick ruling on executive privilege and take another bullet out of the GOPs "argument". 

An so it begins, the final "defense strategy": The "So-what defense"... god I am going to be ill.

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Discredited by who? Hannity?

By anyone who understands the words "aid was never withheld" "zelensky said he was not told of any quid pro quo by Trump or anyone else".

Hannity is the Rachel Maddow of the GOP establishment. Hes a political talk show host dressed up as an news analyst.  

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by Zontar

Just now, Zontar said:

By anyone who understands the words "aid was never withheld" "zelensky said he was not told of any quid pro quo by Trump or anyone else".

 

Oh so you're simply ignoring facts and evidence.  We're really on a different planet now if you're trying to say the aid being linked to favours which they admitted to, is discredited.  Holy smokes.  

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Oh so you're simply ignoring facts and evidence.  We're really on a different planet now if you're trying to say the aid being linked to favours which they admitted to, is discredited.  Holy smokes.  

Heresay and dramatic , fabulist speeches are not facts.