G20 Summit

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you want to present facts, first get ALL of the facts.

http://theresurgent.com/breaking-tha...trump-dossier/

Read the whole article. It provides in depth information on ties Dermocrats had with the Russians. But here is a smaller portion re the meeting Trump Jr. had with Veselnitskaya:

"Prevezon, which is a Russian group, hires Fusion GPS and Rinat Akhmetshin to generate negative press coverage on a British citizen. Prevezon also hires as legal counsel both Baker Hostetler and Natalia Veselnitskaya.

"Rinat Akhmetshin also puts Natalia Veselnitskaya on the payroll.
Rinat Akhmetshin, who works in collaboration with Fusion GPS at the time it is preparing the Trump dossier, is an admitted “Soviet counterintelligence officer” who specializes in “subversive political influence operations often involving disinformation and propaganda.”
While all of this is going on, Fusion GPS is working on the opposition research dossier on Donald Trump using a foreign agent. Are we really supposed to believe that it is completely coincidental that Natalia Veselnitskaya just so happens to be the Russian lawyer who got access to Donald Trump, Jr.? Are we to believe that there is no direct relationship between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS?

"It is remarkable how she gets a PR agent to urge Trump, Jr. to meet with her by promising Russian information about Hillary Clinton’s emails as the Clinton email server story is blowing up. And then it is remarkable how she gives a perfect performance to NBC News two days ago claiming she only talked with Trump about the Magnitsky Act, but assured the press that the Trump team was hoping for dirt on Hillary.

"It is also really remarkable that this all happens as Fusion GPS is prepping its opposition dossier and a New York Times reporter who has been following the story admits it was a year ago, at that time, that someone tipped him off about the meeting.

"Add to all of that two more nuggets. Natalia Veselnitskaya had been denied a visa into the United States. She had been given temporary parole, allowing her to enter the country with an expired visa, but it has been revoked by 2016. Still, Veselnitskaya was able to enter the US anyway to meet with Trump, Jr. in the middle of 2016. It is my understanding this could have only happened in one of two ways. First, she could have argued she was the sole lawyer of representation for her client, but Baker Hostetler also represented Prevezon. She could also have been allowed into the country if she had a collaborative relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You know, the organization that was considering paying Christopher Steele for his Trump dossier work prepared for Fusion GPS.
Also, Ms Veselnitskaya, on her Facebook page, purportedly had several pro-Hillary Clinton posts and anti-Trump posts.
There are three questions reporters should be asking right now.
What is the relationship between Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS and Natalia Veselnitskaya?"

And John McCain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Oh for the love of god. Now you are going to say her and McFaul are in cahoots too. People are stirring this sheit up so NOBODY knows what to believe.

But some of this is tinfoilhat territory, up there with #resist and #treason

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you want to present facts, first get ALL of the facts.

http://theresurgent.com/breaking-tha...trump-dossier/

Read the whole article. It provides in depth information on ties Dermocrats had with the Russians. But here is a smaller portion re the meeting Trump Jr. had with Veselnitskaya:

"Prevezon, which is a Russian group, hires Fusion GPS and Rinat Akhmetshin to generate negative press coverage on a British citizen. Prevezon also hires as legal counsel both Baker Hostetler and Natalia Veselnitskaya.

"Rinat Akhmetshin also puts Natalia Veselnitskaya on the payroll.
Rinat Akhmetshin, who works in collaboration with Fusion GPS at the time it is preparing the Trump dossier, is an admitted “Soviet counterintelligence officer” who specializes in “subversive political influence operations often involving disinformation and propaganda.”
While all of this is going on, Fusion GPS is working on the opposition research dossier on Donald Trump using a foreign agent. Are we really supposed to believe that it is completely coincidental that Natalia Veselnitskaya just so happens to be the Russian lawyer who got access to Donald Trump, Jr.? Are we to believe that there is no direct relationship between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS?

"It is remarkable how she gets a PR agent to urge Trump, Jr. to meet with her by promising Russian information about Hillary Clinton’s emails as the Clinton email server story is blowing up. And then it is remarkable how she gives a perfect performance to NBC News two days ago claiming she only talked with Trump about the Magnitsky Act, but assured the press that the Trump team was hoping for dirt on Hillary.

"It is also really remarkable that this all happens as Fusion GPS is prepping its opposition dossier and a New York Times reporter who has been following the story admits it was a year ago, at that time, that someone tipped him off about the meeting.

"Add to all of that two more nuggets. Natalia Veselnitskaya had been denied a visa into the United States. She had been given temporary parole, allowing her to enter the country with an expired visa, but it has been revoked by 2016. Still, Veselnitskaya was able to enter the US anyway to meet with Trump, Jr. in the middle of 2016. It is my understanding this could have only happened in one of two ways. First, she could have argued she was the sole lawyer of representation for her client, but Baker Hostetler also represented Prevezon. She could also have been allowed into the country if she had a collaborative relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You know, the organization that was considering paying Christopher Steele for his Trump dossier work prepared for Fusion GPS.
Also, Ms Veselnitskaya, on her Facebook page, purportedly had several pro-Hillary Clinton posts and anti-Trump posts.
There are three questions reporters should be asking right now.
What is the relationship between Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS and Natalia Veselnitskaya?"

Wow love the defense articles. .. again deflection at its best .

[The Dad Fisherman]

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That's called being POTUS not hangingout or having qestionable contacts while being a candidate

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

That's called being POTUS not hangingout or having qestionable contacts while being a candidate

So being POTUS exempts one's contacts from being "questionable"? And it absolves one's actions from being considered "hangingout"?
So now that Trump is POTUS, his contacts cannot be considered questionable, nor his actions considered "hangingout."

And who decides what is "questionable"? Isn't it nearly always the case that one considers the actions of those he opposes but can't be proven to be wrong, bad, or illegal, to be "questionable"?

You claimed falsely that Obama never "hung out" with socialists or communists. He did. And he was raised as a child by socialists and communists. Obama's several contacts previous to becoming POTUS were considered "questionable" by those who are anti-communist or anti-radical. Was he "hangingout" then? Was he colluding with left wing elements in our country and other parts of the world either through direct aid or political aid and intellectual or media backing on his way to the presidency?

Well if becoming POTUS absolves Obama of all that, I guess Trump, now being POTUS can be absolved of his "questionable" contacts.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So being POTUS exempts one's contacts from being "questionable"? And it absolves one's actions from being considered "hangingout"?
So now that Trump is POTUS, his contacts cannot be considered questionable, nor his actions considered "hangingout."

And who decides what is "questionable"? Isn't it nearly always the case that one considers the actions of those he opposes but can't be proven to be wrong, bad, or illegal, to be "questionable"?

You claimed falsely that Obama never "hung out" with socialists or communists. He did. And he was raised as a child by socialists and communists. Obama's several contacts previous to becoming POTUS were considered "questionable" by those who are anti-communist or anti-radical. Was he "hangingout" then? Was he colluding with left wing elements in our country and other parts of the world either through direct aid or political aid and intellectual or media backing on his way to the presidency?

Well if becoming POTUS absolves Obama of all that, I guess Trump, now being POTUS can be absolved of his "questionable" contacts.

he was raised as a child by socialists and communists. this statement alone is why I ignore your posts you love to sprinkle these little prejudice comments in your well written rants .. plese get back to me when you have info these questionable people ... hacked our election or were agents of a foreign power ...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Was this before they invaded ukraine Seems you need to put your facts with a time line of world events ... it matters As Trump plays nice with Putin its about facts and time lines .. as well

Your time line of world events is squeezed into a small slot which you think supports your argument. The truer time line of "world events" shows Putin to have been a lieutenant cornel in the KGB. It shows his transition from that to political power as President of Russia after the KGB undercut Gorbachev's "glasnost" and "perestroika" and Yeltsin's attempt to liberate Russia from the clutches of a KGB type dictatorship and to be more in accord with western democracy.

http://www.economist.com/node/9682621

This was well before the invasion of the Ukraine. The invasion was, actually, an attempt to begin the restoration of Russian control of East Europe. So the invasion was actually connected to the old KGB control of Russia. Putin was the same KGB type operative during the Ukraine invasion as he was well before Obama became President.

And Obama surely knew that. It was probably what he referred to when he praised Putin for the "extraordinary work you have done on behalf of the Russian people"--Putin had broken the power of the oligarchs who had risen during the Yeltsin administration. And it was exactly the type of politics Obama would favor--the control of the big money guys by government--socialism.

If Putin's invasion of the Ukraine changed Obama's opinion of him, just as FDR realized he had been suckered by Stalin when he let the Commie dictator take over East Europe, who knows what Trump's opinion of Putin would be if he did such a thing again.

So it's your facts and time line that are lacking. The relevant time line does not does not show that Obama's praise for Putin is more justified than Trump's. You keep straining and deflecting in order to make Trump some sort of boobocrat who is more dangerous than other Presidents we have had. The facts and time lines don't support that.

[PaulS]

You have the Pres. of the United States commenting on another persons wife's body and then you have his personal lawyer threatening someone.

Classy folks we have running the country right now.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You have the Pres. of the United States commenting on another persons wife's body and then you have his personal lawyer threatening someone.

Classy folks we have running the country right now.

reminds me of the Clinton years

good news is...Trump will be gone possibly in a matter of months and definitely in a couple of years....bad news is people will continue to reelect the corpses in Congress who are also "running" the country

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You have the Pres. of the United States commenting on another persons wife's body and then you have his personal lawyer threatening someone.

Classy folks we have running the country right now.

You're kidding right? It was a compliment. Are those offensive now too . What a country you left wingers would have if left alone .. except for the war with Russia that you keep begging for 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

And don't remember Clinton saying things like that in front of the spouse - I'm sure he thought it (numerous times).

Sanders said something like Hillary was better on her worse day than Trump would be on his best day. I would add every Repub. candidate to that statement ( better).

[PaulS]

DS, I'm not sure if you realize it but talking about someone's wifes body is not appropriate.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

DS, I'm not sure if you realize it but talking about someone's wifes body is not appropriate.

man... Bill Clinton would have a tough go of it with the current leftist standards for behavior

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

DS, I'm not sure if you realize it but talking about someone's wifes body is not appropriate.

He said she looked fit , beautiful !! You act like he said she had nice booty and a great rack .
I can't believe how many Saints now reside oh the party of "God is bad"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Said great shape. The guy is a pervert and has no self control.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Said great shape. The guy is a pervert and has no self control.

that's nearly as horrifying as Ted Kennedy's "waitress sandwich"...speaking of no self control...and he was in Washington for like a hundred years and serious democrat presidential candidate and icon


great shape?.....good grief


"It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant’s annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. “They’d always get their girls very, very drunk,” says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells [waitress Carla] Gaviglio the senators want to see her.

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd’s lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check."



don't think Trump can trump that

[PaulS]

And now we learn that Donald Jr. had another visitor w/him - a former Russian counter intelligence officer (Sen. Grassley said he had ties to the Russian government). Another lie (one of many). He just said Tues. that he released everything but forgot to mention this.

I'm shocked at how bad liars the Trump family is. Lie for the sake of lying - no strategy, nothing.

Witch hunt - LOL

[PaulS]

Some guy I hardly knows says your wife has great shape I tell him he is a dic*.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Some guy I hardly knows says your wife has great shape I tell him he is a dic*.

In all seriousness, is this a joke? The party of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, is now lecturing the world on how to act in front of your wife, when other women are around?

The left recently attacked Mike Pence because he goes in the other direction, he doesn't even like being alone with any woman other than his wife.

And somehow that was offensive to the left. And Trump, at the other extreme, is also offensive to the left.

It almost seems like the left will complain, no matter what we do?

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1125039
It almost seems like the left will complain, no matter what we do?[/QUOTE]

That is funny from the most prolific whiner on the Forum. You complained about anything and everything Obama did. Including getting so upset you called him a POS. And Hillary the c word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That is funny from the most prolific whiner on the Forum. You complained about anything and everything Obama did. Including getting so upset you called him a POS. And Hillary the c word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Obama do that I complained about, which I routinely give conservatives a pass for?

I stand by those characterizations of Obama, and especially Hilary. I also say that Trump is a POS. Sure, I complained a lot during the Obama years. That doesn't mean I am guilty of hypocrisy.
.

[Got Stripers]

Times change boys, what used to be ok and considered totally ok, is completely inappropriate today; especially for the leader of the free world. It shows his ignorance and of course his true colors, he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance and he should know better.

My better half used to be head HR for Raytheon, town of Plymouth and she almost fell off her seat when she heard that comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Times change boys, what used to be ok and considered totally ok, is completely inappropriate today; especially for the leader of the free world. It shows his ignorance and of course his true colors, he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance and he should know better.

My better half used to be head HR for Raytheon, town of Plymouth and she almost fell off her seat when she heard that comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I missed the announcement that it was OK to cheat on your wife with a child, or to drunkenly drive a young girl off a bridge, leave her, and then use the family money to dodge responsibility. That was OK when those things took place?

Trump is very crass, very boorish, and had no problem with objectifying women.

"he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance "

Have times changed that much since Bill Clinton and John Edwards? You don't have to go back all that far.

Trump has very, very poor ethics. I have no problem, none, for calling him out on that...unless you give others a pass for ding worse, because they have a (d) after their name.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Times change boys, what used to be ok and considered totally ok, is completely inappropriate today; especially for the leader of the free world. It shows his ignorance and of course his true colors, he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance and he should know better.

My better half used to be head HR for Raytheon, town of Plymouth and she almost fell off her seat when she heard that comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you allow lunitics to set the standards , what's "acceptable " becomes loony .
Glad I work with normal people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by buckman

If you allow lunitics to set the standards , what's "acceptable " becomes loony .
Glad I work with normal people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Trump used that same comment to compliment the wife of a friend that they socialize with on a regular basis, that's totally acceptable comment. If you don't see that it's off base for the president of the united states to comment on a leaders wife body, then sit against the wall at lunch break and whistle at the women you feel are hot as they make their way back to work.

It wasn't right of JFK, but back then it was more of a Men's world and he might have gotten a pass that leaders today certainly wouldn't. It certainly wasn't right for Bill Clinton either, that's an abuse of power, whether your the leader of the free world or your local church.

I don't consider it "acceptable" behavior, I'd consider it respectful and the behavior most of the people (of either party)I know would expect of the president of this country. I'm embarrassed at times to see the crap coming out of his mouth, or the BS he spews over twitter, I have no respect for the man.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If Trump used that same comment to compliment the wife of a friend that they socialize with on a regular basis, that's totally acceptable comment. If you don't see that it's off base for the president of the united states to comment on a leaders wife body, then sit against the wall at lunch break and whistle at the women you feel are hot as they make their way back to work.

It wasn't right of JFK, but back then it was more of a Men's world and he might have gotten a pass that leaders today certainly wouldn't. It certainly wasn't right for Bill Clinton either, that's an abuse of power, whether your the leader of the free world or your local church.

I don't consider it "acceptable" behavior, I'd consider it respectful and the behavior most of the people (of either party)I know would expect of the president of this country. I'm embarrassed at times to see the crap coming out of his mouth, or the BS he spews over twitter, I have no respect for the man.

His personal behavior is going to fall short, much of the time. Deep down, he's a jerk, or gross, or boorish, something like that.

But if he ran against the serially dishonest pantsuit lady tomorrow, I'd vote for him again. I'd love to have a president of high personal character. The GOP tried that in 2008 and 2012, the country wasn't interested.

[Sea Dangles]

I have to admit that PaulS sounds a little silly considering Clinton got blown in the White House. Maybe times hadn't changed yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Good to see see seadangles's is back with his typical insults. Nothing constructive ever to add, just childish insults. What do you do lurk until you can't take it anymore and then feel like you have to comment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Good to see see seadangles's is back with his typical insults.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's an insult? .....good thing he didn't tell you that you were in "great shape" ..wait...is it ok to comment that a guy is in "great shape" but not that a woman is in "great shape" in the era of "gender equity"?



love this....

"Two decades ago, the media weren’t obsessed with Chinese interference in a presidential election. This summer we mark the 20th anniversary of a major investigation by Congress of attempts by a hostile foreign power to influence an American presidential election. I’m glad the news media is pursuing the Trump–Russia scandal, but let’s not forget the differences between how they are covering Russia compared with how they reported a similar story — this one involving Communist China — that developed during Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. The Washington Post reported in 1998 that “evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.” Many people still believe that a major cover-up of that scandal worked — in part because the media expressed skepticism and devoted only a fraction of resources they are spending on the Trump–Russia story. Network reporters expressed outright skepticism of the story, with many openly criticizing the late senator Fred Thompson, the chair of the Senate investigating committee, for wasting time and money. On June 17, 1997, Katie Couric, then the Today co-anchor, asked the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward about the story: “Are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?” According to an analysis by the Media Research Center, the news coverage of the congressional hearings on the China scandal in the summer of 1997 were dwarfed by reports on the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace and the death of Princess Diana."