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.

 

Trump Trolls ABC and George Stephanopoulos

page: 15
51
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
That is not what George Stephanopoulos was talking about. He wasn't talking about polite conversation between Trump and the Prince of Whales. He wasn't talking about INTERPOL or The Five Eyes. Stephanopoulos was talking about a foreign power offering to provide "dirt" on a political opponent,

Yep...


in order to interfere in an election on his behalf.

Nope. That part was added by your TDS engine.

No one seems to want to even try to answer my directly relevant question, so I'll ask again...

How, exactly, can the dissemination of truthful information that was not obtained illegally (it is not illegal for Trump or anyone else to have a conversation with someone from Russia or anywhere else) be considered interfering in an election?

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that one politician outing another's dirty laundry happens every single election cycle, in the vast majority of elections, and in fact these events do sometimes sway the election one way or the other, as it should, as long as the information is truthful.




posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Then what laws did Mueller cited as being broken by Trump as grounds for impeachment?


Mueller cited a lot of laws, court cases and Supreme Court rulings in his report. Did you read it? As far as grounds for impeachment, Mueller clearly passed the impeachment ball to Congress, as he wrote in his report.


edit on 14-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then it should be Steele and FusionGPS employees behind bars.

Or are you saying all Trump has to do is hire someone and that person can seek out Kremlin help? So foreign influence is fine as long as you use loopholes?


There are legal avenues to do opposition research, and there are illegal avenues to do opposition research. You don't seem to be able to grok that concept.
edit on 14-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




Nope. That part was added by your TDS engine.


Again, the real Trump Derangement Syndrome" is evident in Trump supporters who have the memory, the cognitive skills and thought process of a gold fish. Stephanopoulos' question came from the context of the Trump Tower meeting and all the contacts and outreach documented in the Mueller report. We're not dealing with a vacuum of reality here.



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then it should be Steele and FusionGPS employees behind bars.

Or are you saying all Trump has to do is hire someone and that person can seek out Kremlin help? So foreign influence is fine as long as you use loopholes?


There are legal avenues to do opposition research, and there are illegal avenues to do opposition research. You don't seem to be able to grook that concept.

I think you mean Grok.

So it's legal for Trump to hire someone to reach out to the Kremlin. As long as he does that it's fine. Maybe you can tell me the logic behind one being legal and the other not.



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux




Then what laws did Mueller cited as being broken by Trump as grounds for impeachment?


Mueller cited a lot of laws, court cases and Supreme Court rulings in his report. Did you read it? As far as grounds for impeachment, Mueller clearly passed the impeachment ball to Congress, as he wrote in him report.



Then please quote from the report what laws Trump broke?



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




So, if a foreign actor digs up truthful information on a certain candidate or candidates - is that interfering in an election?

Yes , of course it is.

“I think it’s a mistake. I think it’s a mistake of law. I don’t want to send a signal to encourage this,” Graham, usually a reliable supporter of the president, told reporters at the Capitol.

“I can only speak for myself. I’ve never had a government come up to me and say, ‘Hey, I’d like to help you in your campaign.’ The answer is no. It’s got to be no. I mean, the likelihood of foreign interference is growing, not lessening,” the South Carolina senator continued.
nypost.com...


You ignore the pertinent question ... Why ?



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




So it's legal for Trump to hire someone to reach out to the Kremlin. As long as he does that it's fine.


No, that's not what I said. What is it with you Trump defenders that either have reading comprehension problems or insist on twisting and spinning people's words?




Maybe you can tell me the logic behind one being legal and the other not.


Trump didn't hire a legal American firm, consistently used by the government and political parties. Trump was willing to and knowingly accept illicit help from a foreign government, and praised them for their efforts. He rewarded their efforts in many ways, including elevating Putin on the global stage while deriding his own country's intelligence. He continues to publicly praise the concept of sidestepping election law if it helps him win the election.


edit on 14-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Again, the real Trump Derangement Syndrome" is evident in Trump supporters who have the memory, the cognitive skills and thought process of a gold fish. Stephanopoulos' question came from the context of the Trump Tower meeting and all the contacts and outreach documented in the Mueller report. We're not dealing with a vacuum of reality here.



This topic has been such a eye roller when it comes to "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that its actually starting to make me personally sick.

I like to listen to news radio; I spend a lot of time commuting and so it's a easy way to get a taste of what's going on and what I might want to research more later. My AM and FM radio buttons are full of different talk channels that run the gambit from Rush Limbaugh to Thom Hartmann and everything in between. And I switch between them ether until one hits a commercial or are talking about a subject that doesn't interest me on technical merits (I can't sit through a report about Broadway shows for example).

And the last two days the heavy coverage of the Trump/Stephanopoulos interview is just plane silly; people from across the spectrum are turning it into the biggest revolution since the Son of Sam was fingered. Of course each commentator or journalist have their own biased slant to the interview, but each agrees that this is the biggest Trump story (good or ill) to ever come along.

And what makes this silly is that we all know that Trump can't help himself from running his mouth with out ever really saying much that is part of a coherent narrative. Yet we continue to agonize over very word he uses like he's the Fed Reserve Chairman hinting about inflation.

Here's the bottom line; a dumb question was asked of the president and he gave a dumb answer. That's it, it doesn't go any deeper than that... just like most coverage on "what trump said today". And if you think it does (no matter if you like or dislike Trump) you might have TDS.

edit on 14-6-2019 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
That is not what George Stephanopoulos was talking about. He wasn't talking about polite conversation between Trump and the Prince of Whales. He wasn't talking about INTERPOL or The Five Eyes. Stephanopoulos was talking about a foreign power offering to provide "dirt" on a political opponent,

Yep...


in order to interfere in an election on his behalf.

Nope. That part was added by your TDS engine.

No one seems to want to even try to answer my directly relevant question, so I'll ask again...

How, exactly, can the dissemination of truthful information that was not obtained illegally (it is not illegal for Trump or anyone else to have a conversation with someone from Russia or anywhere else) be considered interfering in an election?

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that one politician outing another's dirty laundry happens every single election cycle, in the vast majority of elections, and in fact these events do sometimes sway the election one way or the other, as it should, as long as the information is truthful.


Are you THAT dense?!

If a foreign intelligence agency offers information about any person in a vote, they do not do this out of compassion or the purest of intensions.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell.

Do not think about the information, or the advantages you could gain out of this - you have to pay a price for that information . It is a debt to a foreign intelligence agency!!!

I cannot fathom anything worse for a politician but be corrupted by foreign intelligence.

How could you trust ANY decision this politician will come up with? Where does his intention for this decision come from?
edit on 14 6 2019 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here read this and then shut the front door 💥🤣🤣💥


Delirious Democrats are now accusing Team Obama of treason💥😁😁💥

In July 2016, the Obama administration accepted unsolicited information from Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat who just happened to have helped arrange a $25 million government donation to the Clinton Foundation years before. Downer said that he had witnessed a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, bragging about some dirt that the Russians supposedly had on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Though Downer’s claim was reported two-plus months after the alleged event, and was only hearsay gathered at a London tavern, the Obama administration gave it to the FBI which, in turn, thought it was weighty enough to justify opening a counterintelligence case against the lawfully elected Republican nominee for president.

In other words, the Democratic administration accepted dirt from a foreign friendly and used it to justify investigating its GOP rival.

And then, OMG, they did it again just a few weeks later.



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   
No wonder Nancy Pelosi is so hesitant to start impeachment proceedings!

mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Hurray for all those who revel in a President Troll. Such high standards


The best way to kill a bee is pour honey on it 😎


Maxine is back to "M PEACH 45!" again. Durham must be coming her way.


If Maxine wasn’t employed as the ultra-corrupt politician she is, she’d be mopping floors at Arby’s.



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Trump..collusion is fake news but will collude with foreign governments.

What an idiot.



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Or work at a Halloween wig specialty store.



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: d4rktruth
Trump..collusion is fake news but will collude with foreign governments.

What an idiot.


You poor lad. You still don't understand where the power is...and where it is not.



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Again, the real Trump Derangement Syndrome" is evident in Trump supporters who have the memory, the cognitive skills and thought process of a gold fish.

Nice deplorable attempt at deflection using insults...


Stephanopoulos' question came from the context of the Trump Tower meeting and all the contacts and outreach documented in the Mueller report.

Yeah, the attempts that even Mueller himself said were not successful (meaning, the people on Trumps team did not engage).



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




In July 2016, the Obama administration accepted unsolicited information from Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat who just happened to have helped arrange a $25 million government donation to the Clinton Foundation years before. Downer said that he had witnessed a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, bragging about some dirt that the Russians supposedly had on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.


Do you understand that any information, solicited or non, which some foreign entity feels compelled to report to our government, would be accepted by the Trump Administration, not the Trump Campaign? Do you understand the difference between governing and running for an election? Anyone who has information detrimental to national security should report that information to the appropriate authorities within the current administration, not to a campaign in exchange for favors.

And, unlike the Trump Foundation, the Clinton Foundation is still up and running and doing its charitable work, as promised. The Clinton Foundation is a charity, not a campaign fund and not a political action committee.

You don't know how to read music in front of you, or play the instrument you're banging on, while pretending to be virtuoso.


edit on 14-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




Yeah, the attempts that even Mueller himself said were not successful (meaning, the people on Trumps team did not engage).


You're talking about obstruction now, not conspiracy. This topic is about collusion and conspiracy.

Mueller said that addled Trump was "mostly unsuccessful" at obstruction. In other words, he was successful sometimes. And so? What's your point? Will you let a bank robber who got caught go, because he wasn't successful?



posted on Jun, 14 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

But Trump "running" for President in 2020 is different from Trump "running" in 2016 because Trump is a sitting President in 2020 right ?

🐔🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🐔




top topics



 
51
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join