TIME Magazine's Upcoming Cover

Trump should just tell everyone, yeah, we are friends with Russia and what of it?

Having good relations with Russia is a positive in my opinion

Shows how little you know about Russia, let alone the current geopolitical situation.
 
Jewish TIME magazine promoting anti-Russian sentiments? no surprise there.

This war against Russia, much like against Iran is motivated by Jewish interests.

They are very good at telling us who is the enemy, who is the victim etc..

In reality Israel and the Jewish have long taken over America, not Russia. This can be seen with their control of the money (fed) the mass media, the lobbying groups like AIPAC.

Here is some more American Jewish propaganda for your enjoyment.


All matches the Jewish agenda. Open borders, White guilt, White genocide (through democide of Europe's population) gender bending. Oh and of course warmongering.

JuBxaZb.jpg



What a shame we live in a world where you cannot freely talk about this without being hunted down for these politically incorrect truths.
 
The reports of the death of that horse have been greatly exaggerated by a certain party's cheerleaders


If they actually find concrete evidence of criminal collusion in this matter, I'm all for prosecuting everyone involved including impeaching Trump. But so far, there's been nothing solid at all, just the hopes and dreams of Trump's opponents.
 
Shows how little you know about Russia, let alone the current geopolitical situation.
I tend to agree. The Russian Reset was one of the core errors of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, and it blew up in our faces. They aren't our friends, and we don't have very many shared interests geopolitically.
 
If they actually find concrete evidence of criminal collusion in this matter, I'm all for prosecuting everyone involved including impeaching Trump. But so far, there's been nothing solid at all, just the hopes and dreams of Trump's opponents.

I don't think you can say that there isn't anything solid when it comes to Flynn. When it comes to Trump, we will see, but he certainly hasn't acted like a man with nothing to hide, based on what Comey has leaked.
 
I don't think you can say that there isn't anything solid when it comes to Flynn. When it comes to Trump, we will see, but he certainly hasn't acted like a man with nothing to hide, based on what Comey has leaked.
Agreed on Flynn. As for Trump, that's conjecture flavored with a bit of confirmation bias. Nothing solid.
 
Agreed on Flynn. As for Trump, that's conjecture flavored with a bit of confirmation bias. Nothing solid.

Okay, we can call it conjecture if you like (though I will say that I am about 95% confident that Comey will testify to what the "sources close to Comey" have said was in his memos on his Trump interactions), but there has been a lot of story changing from Trump and his minions when it comes to firing Comey (and it has only been 1 week), which is very fishy. Trump is denying this, but he is an "unpresedented" liar:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-fact-check-tally/?utm_term=.d73446d5cabe
 
I am about 95% confident that Comey will testify to what the "sources close to Comey" have said was in his memos on his Trump interactions
I think this is where we differ. I think Comey will equivocate according to his habit of trying to play things down the middle. I think he will stop far short of supporting the notion that Trump obstructed justice but nonetheless mildly censure Trump for even making comments about the investigation.

But yes, the allegations are serious, and Comey's testimony will be key.
 
They've got a solid cover game. The ones with Trump melting were nice.

Trump is oddly recognizable in puddle form.
 
I think this is where we differ. I think Comey will equivocate according to his habit of trying to play things down the middle. I think he will stop far short of supporting the notion that Trump obstructed justice but nonetheless mildly censure Trump for even making comments about the investigation.

But yes, the allegations are serious, and Comey's testimony will be key.

How will he equivocate though if he didn't equivocate in his memos (as they are going to be subpoenaed)? That is the advantage of taking the notes in real time. Also, beyond that, he isn't the FBI director anymore, so I think he will be in a totally different role testifying as a private citizen against a sitting president, as opposed to the difficult position he was in handling an investigation into a presidential candidate, in a particularly adversarial year, in a particularly adversarial political environment, with public trust eroded. The decision to make a case isn't a burden that he carries anymore, he is just a witness now for a special counsel who is surely going to take his word and memos over Trump's ever changing account of things, given their experience working together.

The NYT article from tonight sheds more light into Comey's experience through his time with Trump in office, as told to his friend (who is also a political/legal journalist and and fellow at the Brookings Institution, which makes it seem more like Comey was leaving a paper trail than just talking to a friend).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

https://www.brookings.edu/experts/benjamin-wittes/
 
Last edited:
How will he equivocate though if he didn't equivocate in his memos (as they are going to be subpoenaed)?
I doubt very much that his memo is explicitly damning for two reasons.
1. What we've had reported as hearsay about the memo wasn't particularly damning. It certainly didn't sound like a direct order to halt the investigation into Flynn, and Comey obviously didn't take it that way, because he didn't halt the investigation into Flynn.
2. If Comey thought Trump was obstructing justice, he had a duty to report it, and he didn't do that. Now he could say that Trump's message was sufficiently vague that he thought Trump could have been obstructing justice but wasn't sure, and so he didn't report it for that reason, but such an explanation leaves Trump plenty of wiggle room.

There's no doubt that we are all speculating and we'll have to wait and see what Comey says.

I have two additional thoughts on the matter, which are:

Between Trump's potentially criminal conversation with Comey in the affair with Flynn and Bill Clinton's potentially criminal conversation with Loretta Lynch related to the investigation into his wife, there's a disturbing disregard for , at a bare minimum, the appearance of propriety. Even if neither did anything wrong, it looks so bad that erodes public trust. And public trust in our political institutions is something our political elites seem to take for granted, but once it is gone it is very hard to rebuild.

If Comey testifies and takes down Trump, he will have destroyed the political prospects of the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee. J. Edgar Hoover served under five (four?) presidents, none of whom trusted him but none f whom dared to cross him. I don't think that kind of power should necessarily rest with an unelected official, who cannot be fired by an elected official without massive political fallout. Both Dem and Republican voters have called for Comey's head, yet firing him may have been a bridge too far. Whatever Trump's fate, he may well deserve it, but we shouldn't overlook how poorly Comey has behaved in using these well archived memos as political payback.
 
You didn't answer the question.

Yes. If it means stopping even worse people taking power.

We should have been allies with Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad. As the "rebels" are far worse than they are.
 
You guys get so uptight.

It seems the agenda of the powers that be have really made you hate Putin and Russian haha. Unreal....
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,871
Messages
55,313,431
Members
174,733
Latest member
Bob Gnuheart
Back
Top