It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chris Wallace (FoxNews) challenges Adam Schiff on Trump-Russia collusion

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

It's OK, we don't need some pundits to argue the case.

Trump said that the investigation was the end of his presidency and that he was f***ked.

Why might that be?



Because of lies being allowed by media is my answer Bro. He knows like most of us, maybe even you know, that the Leftist are in charge of MSM for a long time. We have seen them EXPOSED. Have we not?
edit on 22-4-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

It's OK, we don't need some pundits to argue the case.

Trump said that the investigation was the end of his presidency and that he was f***ked.

Why might that be?



intellectually and physically dishonest. AKA a LIAR.

Try quoting what you say IN CONTEXT, and see how closely it follows what you imply here.

When you can't make an argument, you lie. That's #ing pathetic. Is that honestly how you want to be known here?

eta:link to the truth.

edit on 22-4-2019 by network dude because: tea is the secret to life.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

It's OK, we don't need some pundits to argue the case.

Trump said that the investigation was the end of his presidency and that he was f***ked.

Why might that be?



Lots of people fell for that one.

Like Trump didn't know that would leak out right ?

πŸ˜†πŸ˜†


Exactly right.

If he did know it would leak out, why would he incriminate himself? What was his motive in making himself look guilty and weak?


Just quit spinning the lie back up. What is incriminating about knowing someone is F'ng with you? I had a crazy neighbor one time, I was f'd until I moved or someone was going to get hurt. This guy was coming into my house. My 11 year old called the cops on him one time when he wasn't there because he had her freaked out. WE MOVED! I was F'd!

I rest your case for you.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

It's OK, we don't need some pundits to argue the case.

Trump said that the investigation was the end of his presidency and that he was f***ked.

Why might that be?



Lots of people fell for that one.

Like Trump didn't know that would leak out right ?

πŸ˜†πŸ˜†


Exactly right.

If he did know it would leak out, why would he incriminate himself? What was his motive in making himself look guilty and weak?


The very next sentence explains what Trump meant, but we already know that leftist liars (with egg on their faces after buying the Russian collusion delusion for 2+ years) are only interested in soundbites and propaganda.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

It's OK, we don't need some pundits to argue the case.

Trump said that the investigation was the end of his presidency and that he was f***ked.

Why might that be?



maybe he figured the media / deep state were going to use to club and distract him into irrelevance.
which they tried to do but failed.
like hearing a noise in your car and thinking it's damaged beyond repair but later finding out it's salvable.
or hearing your gfriend come in angry and thinking she's had it with you but she's just mad at her co-worker. stand down, not as bad as I thought, just an emotional overreaction.

not to drift topic but has Hillary EVER done a Fox interview? even Obama did O'Reilly a few times.
edit on 22-4-2019 by ElGoobero because: clarify excellent point

edit on 22-4-2019 by ElGoobero because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-4-2019 by ElGoobero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: xuenchen

What's funny is the standard needed for an Indictment is simply a preponderance of evidence. Mueller didn't have to show "beyond a reasonable doubt". He just had to show it was "more likely than not" that a crime took place. They could not demonstrate even that.

ooofffff
that is quite a gut punch isn't it



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   
In a translation: Even though after an exhaustive investigation there was no evidence of a conspiracy to coordinate with Russians to affect the 2016 election, Trump is still guilty of it because we wanted that to be true so very, very, very badly it hurts to sit down or even wipe our butts. But we're not over our heads in a psychotic event from which we'll probably never recover. We're fine. It's Trump that's not fine.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
The establishment elite in this country have rarely been so threatened by a president they can't control.

I don't know... the biggest factor that gives me pause from believing this is... if that was true, why haven't they just JFK'd him?
edit on 22-4-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps Trump was only acting weak and guilty because it wasn't actually an act?

Yes, you and your ilk will continue believing this until the hammer comes down...

The questions is... what will you do then?



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

It's OK, we don't need some pundits to argue the case.

Trump said that the investigation was the end of his presidency and that he was f***ked.

Why might that be?



intellectually and physically dishonest. AKA a LIAR.

Try quoting what you say IN CONTEXT, and see how closely it follows what you imply here.

When you can't make an argument, you lie. That's #ing pathetic. Is that honestly how you want to be known here?

eta:link to the truth.


Ah, I see, you and the article conveniently leave out the bit where he castigated Jeff Sessions for not protecting him, before he qualified his previous remark. I believe that you have to take all of the scenario in to understand the subtext of what was happening.

If you read what was recorded in the Mueller report, in order and without omissions, it looks like he responded to the news in panic and without guarding his words, then tried to lay the blame elsewhere (on Sessions for not protecting him), then tried to justify his outburst, realizing the way the remark must appear to Sessions.

Trump has done all of these things several times in public; The hasty and unconsidered remark, the blaming of others (especially for simply doing their job) and then the retraction or redefinition of their previous remark ("I didn't mean that they were actually going to pay for the wall, I meant that in the long term they will pay for it).

So, i'm clearly not lying and was critically analyzing all the facts.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps Trump was only acting weak and guilty because it wasn't actually an act?

Yes, you and your ilk will continue believing this until the hammer comes down...

The questions is... what will you do then?


I have an ilk?



Even if the US disintegrates and anarchy takes hold, I'll probably do what I'm doing now - just discussing things rationally. You see, I don't live there.

Trump's whole potential presidential term is limited anyway.

Taking a historical view, he will be a blip in the story of America - unless he really screws up big time, then he will be remembered.

edit on 22/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

No you intentionally took the quote out of context, you can try to spin it all you want.

Trump was clearly talking about being screwed (not the exact term he used but don't want to break t and c) because he knew special counsels were used to derail administrations

And that's exactly what it was used for. And he was innocent of the underlying charge of conspiring with Russians.

You and others trying to psin that as if he was somehow guilty AFTER Mueller showed the collusion narrative being pushed was a lie is laughable.

But I guess if people spent two years lying that everyone connected to trump was a Russian agent, whats one more lie on top of it?
edit on 22-4-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

It's OK, we don't need some pundits to argue the case.

Trump said that the investigation was the end of his presidency and that he was f***ked.

Why might that be?



Lots of people fell for that one.

Like Trump didn't know that would leak out right ?

πŸ˜†πŸ˜†


Exactly right.

If he did know it would leak out, why would he incriminate himself? What was his motive in making himself look guilty and weak?


The very next sentence explains what Trump meant, but we already know that leftist liars (with egg on their faces after buying the Russian collusion delusion for 2+ years) are only interested in soundbites and propaganda.


The very next three sentences were about Trump castigating Sessions and asking to the effect of, "Why didn't you protect me"?



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Adam Schiff looks like someone tried to draw Kevin Spacey from memory.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: chr0naut

No you intentionally took the quote out of context, you can try to spin it all you want.

Trump was clearly talking about being screwed (not the exact term he used but don't want to break t and c) because he knew special counsels were used to derail investigations.

And that's exactly what it was used for. And he was innocent of the underlying charge of conspiring with Russians.

You and others trying to psin that as if he was somehow guilty AFTER Mueller showed the collusion narrative being pushed was a lie is laughable.

But I guess if people spent two years lying that everyone connected to trump was a Russian agent, whats one more lie on top of it?


Please read the Mueller report, Section 2, page 78, under the titles "Evidence - The Appointment of the Special Counsel and the President's reaction". You will see that I was not wrong and the specific sequence was as I laid it out, and not as you have suggested.

Also, are you implying that I have spent two years suggesting that everyone connected to trump was a Russian agent? Because I haven't done that either.

Mueller's report does not exonerate Trump of anything. It does not charge him, which is a different matter and fully explicable by the policy where a sitting President cannot be indited (also specifically mentioned in the report, which I take to mean that Mueller would have indicted Trump is no so restrained. Otherwise, why mention it?).



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Ive read the report. Your initial posting of that comment without context was intentionally designed to make it seems as if trump was saying he was guilty thus the investigation was the end of him.

he was not guilty, so your attempt to imply that is absurd.

In addition, the comments about sessions recusal do not speak anymore to your implication; again as the full context of his comments show he knew this would be a witch hunt designed to stop his presidency (he was right that was the attempt), and he was upset at sessions for allowing it to happen.

You may not have said everyone connected to trump was a Russian agent, but you bought into the collusion lie, and are still trying to hold out hope it is true.

Thus your last paragraph here.

No one, trump or anyone in his campaign, was found guilty of conspiring with Russians illegally. For you to claim that this is only because trump couldn't be indicted is ridiculous and shows you are totally ignorant of the report or are intentionally spinning it

Two things:

1. Mueller specifically said the report didn't exonerate trump from obstruction, Why only say that on the obstruction part if he met it on the collusion part as well?

2. If no one connected to trump was guilty of conspiring to steal the election with Russians (they are not President so Mueller could have charged them), what is your claim here? That trump himself did illegally conspire with Russia by himeslef, but couldn't be charged because he is President? What a joke.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

It's OK, we don't need some pundits to argue the case.

Trump said that the investigation was the end of his presidency and that he was f***ked.

Why might that be?



intellectually and physically dishonest. AKA a LIAR.

Try quoting what you say IN CONTEXT, and see how closely it follows what you imply here.

When you can't make an argument, you lie. That's #ing pathetic. Is that honestly how you want to be known here?

eta:link to the truth.


Ah, I see, you and the article conveniently leave out the bit where he castigated Jeff Sessions for not protecting him, before he qualified his previous remark. I believe that you have to take all of the scenario in to understand the subtext of what was happening.

If you read what was recorded in the Mueller report, in order and without omissions, it looks like he responded to the news in panic and without guarding his words, then tried to lay the blame elsewhere (on Sessions for not protecting him), then tried to justify his outburst, realizing the way the remark must appear to Sessions.

Trump has done all of these things several times in public; The hasty and unconsidered remark, the blaming of others (especially for simply doing their job) and then the retraction or redefinition of their previous remark ("I didn't mean that they were actually going to pay for the wall, I meant that in the long term they will pay for it).

So, i'm clearly not lying and was critically analyzing all the facts.



Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm #ed. Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.



You are clearly lying, or ignorant. You decide, I just report it.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

It's OK, we don't need some pundits to argue the case.

Trump said that the investigation was the end of his presidency and that he was f***ked.

Why might that be?



intellectually and physically dishonest. AKA a LIAR.

Try quoting what you say IN CONTEXT, and see how closely it follows what you imply here.

When you can't make an argument, you lie. That's #ing pathetic. Is that honestly how you want to be known here?

eta:link to the truth.


Ah, I see, you and the article conveniently leave out the bit where he castigated Jeff Sessions for not protecting him, before he qualified his previous remark. I believe that you have to take all of the scenario in to understand the subtext of what was happening.

If you read what was recorded in the Mueller report, in order and without omissions, it looks like he responded to the news in panic and without guarding his words, then tried to lay the blame elsewhere (on Sessions for not protecting him), then tried to justify his outburst, realizing the way the remark must appear to Sessions.

Trump has done all of these things several times in public; The hasty and unconsidered remark, the blaming of others (especially for simply doing their job) and then the retraction or redefinition of their previous remark ("I didn't mean that they were actually going to pay for the wall, I meant that in the long term they will pay for it).

So, i'm clearly not lying and was critically analyzing all the facts.



Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm #ed. Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.



You are clearly lying, or ignorant. You decide, I just report it.


Is it really "either/or"?



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

in my tiny world, sure, it is. I should have left an option for partisan shilling, but I kind of think that falls into the second category.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
β€œEveryone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.” This was President Trump's frame of thought when he said he's 'f*d'.

He didn't say 'we're all going to hang from nooses' or anything to suggest he thought he was legally screwed. Trump knew it was all a witch hunt that would bog the Presidency down, and it has, and he was angry, just like every American who voted for Trump.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join