Second meeting with Trump and Putin not reported at G20

Just search your name and dossier

 

I have. Show me which of my posts indicates I am "pleased" about the dossier.

 

The dossier has been much more right than wrong......it's just the pee pee tape that's still not in the public realm.

 

Fascinating. This is actually big news.

Which intelligence agencies have verified that any of the dossier is accurate? The FBI? The CIA? Or is it both? Specifically, what parts of the dossier have been declared by relevant agencies to be "right"?.

Again, this is ground breaking news. Please share the links that back up your assertion.

 

I did the search you suggested. I think you have a valid point.

 

The ones that popped up and noted no outrage at that interference and attempt to undermine can you point me to where I can find that?

 

And it was a foriegn national with ties to Russia colluding with the DNC. So where is the outrage and investigation and crimjnal charges?
Oh that's right oiu are a foreign national to us tryjng to influence politics here.

 

"No outrage" does not equal "pleased". I am taking a wait and see approach and I am neither pleased nor outraged by the dossier.

I am awaiting your apology for having misrepresented my position as being "pleased" with the dossier.

All I have ever said is that I want the truth to come out. If Trump or any of his family / friends / members of the campaign have done anything illegal, I want them to pay the price (and not be pardoned). If they have done nothing wrong at all, they should move forward with clear names.

There is a middle ground - doing things that are not illegal but that are unethical / dodgy / immoral (choose your word) by some standard. In that case he (and they) should pay the political price for those actions. That "price" might be high, low or non-existent.

At the moment we don't have the truth because the investigations (there are several) are ongoing. Anyone who is, at this stage, ready to say he is guilty of any illegal activity is jumping the gun. Similarly, people who say there is "no evidence" are jumping the gun - because they don't know all the evidence that the various investigations have collected.

Wait and see. Be patient.

 

For a document that had been circulating around for months, ignored by the MSM, and the intelligence agencies had almost no confidence in, you were sure excited about it:

"It is the rest of the stuff in the dossier that is explosive. The allegations are serious. Seriously serious. Like treasonous serious, and that is not an exaggeration."

It's also "explosive" when a Tabloid reports a human giving birth to an alien. The implications are "serious". But almost nobody gives the reporting a second thought. Why? Because there is absolutely no proof attached, and as always, you have to consider the source. The dossier is little different. No proof attached and a very questionable source.

Yet you felt it was explosive and treasonous serious enough to start a whole topic about it. Of course, you kept repeating "IF" over and over to justify fanning the flames of discussing it, but it was obvious you wanted to believe, or at the very least you were pleased with the implications of the content.

I'd reconsider demanding an apology from anyone.

 

Have you read the dossier?

I used the word "if" because I recognised that the contents of the dossier are unproven.

Read the dossier and imagine, for a moment, that everything in there is true. Would you say that those allegations (if true) are NOT serious? As I said in that thread, some of the allegations - if true - look like treason.

If they are not true, someone owes Trump a big apology.

I commented on the dossier, nothing more. I am neither pleased by the dossier nor outraged by it.

 

The word "IF" is not an adequate disclaimer in discussing the document. I can't find where you specifically state that the document had been almost ignored by the MSM because nothing of substance could be verified. I can't find where you specifically acknowledged that the intelligence agencies had almost no confidence in the document. Without those disclaimers, simply saying the word "IF" is insufficient for honest discussion. Simply using "IF" by itself attaches an undeserved credibility and strongly suggests an agenda.

I don't waste time "imagining" what-ifs when unverified things are simply yelled out. That would mean spending every waking moment hashing our fantasies that are almost always bogus. IF the dossier had been given some credibility by the government and the press based on some verifiable evidence, speculate away. But we both know that none of that existed then or now.

Look, I have no problem with you rooting for the dossier to be true. But be intellectually honest and disclose the whole picture. Anything less verifies a personal bias.

 

That's you making assumptions. I am not rooting for it to be true. I am actually quite ambivalent because I am not really partisan.

I just want the truth to come out, whatever that truth is.

 

It's the right that wants secretive, covert deals. No press allowed at presidential staff meetings, no note-taking, and then they howl when there is a leak. Huge objections to investigations to the point of threatening if personal finances are examined, denials, lies that are later admitted. It's all hide, lie, sneak around, deny, and deflect. If there is nothing to hide, then why all the hiding?

Now Trump admits his own guilt by looking into pardons including his own!

 

Life is about making judgements based on what's presented. I outlined why your postings regarding the doccier appear to have an agenda. With your lack of real, complete and pertinent disclosure beyond "IF", most reasonable people would come to the same conclusion.

There is no need for us to go around in circles on this. If you say you have no agenda, I'll take you at your word. Just offering some honest feedback should you be tempted to respond to the next "story of the day" in kind.

 

Let us know when Trump pardons himself or anyone else in the circle, until then just more partisan bs by you. I'm sure if it were you, you would have no problem with a bs investigation expanding to personal business. This is a BS story, you know it, I know it, the world knows it and I'm sure Trump is pissed as you would be, I would be and anyone in the world would be.

 

Are you saying he didn't inquire about his rights to pardon his staff AND himself? YES or NO.

 

Actually, if you get an answer that addresses the actual question, I would be surprised.

 

Actually, if I get an answer AT ALL I'll be surprised.

 

The answer is yes.

But the more important question is "SO WHAT"? Trump has no idea what avenue of witch hunt Mueller will pursue. If Mueller goes off the rails, it makes perfect sense to Trump to understand ALL his options. There is nothing odd or strange about this at all.

I sense another leftist psychotic episode of frothing at the mouth and severe ideological spasms. The total dysfunction of the left never ceases to amaze me.

 

What the hell is your source of your incorrect information? It was all over the news and you say it didn't happen.

That is the answer of either a grossly uninformed person, or a brainwashed party-loyal bot. You can decide which is true, but everyone who is informed knows Mueller has a long history of being a reliable, non-partisan professional, so your excuses here are nonsense to say the least.

Deflection. Shifting your own flaws to me. If you were honest you would admit that Trump is a loose cannon or worse, and his whole administration is like him and a huge danger to this country. Maybe you'll come around when he is impeached and some of his gang are in jail, maybe with him.

 

Simply nailed it.

 

I'm sure Obama thoroughly explored his presidential authority to grant pardons, and commute sentences. Part of the Obama legacy is the historic numbers of pardons, and commutations granted in the final year of his presidency. The left tries to contort the facts to fit the narrative.

 

I would love to sneak up behind the OP or any other liberal, and yell------------------look out its a Russian.

 

Point to me your outrage and demands an investigation and those involved be charged with the Russia dossier. I read you post and my perception is quite pleased the dossier existed and was made known convince me otherwise.

As in
"Yep, the dossier is beginning to check out on several fronts for sure with this latest report from Maddow. And just so Trump supporters know, this information that checks out, is coming from our intelligence, not Maddow. And what is interesting the most, is the fact that Trump in that dossier is implicated in colluding with the Russians ."

Where is the part about your outrage over the Russian collusion by the DNC to obtain it in order to undermine the eldction process? You were cheering it on.

And note another poster reads the same into your remarks.

 

Still not a MOD ...