"Trump's a Russian agent" says who?

@Thinkerbell I didn't know it and am still not sure what that means. Still scratching my head here.

@MistyCee

Scratch a little harder, Misty...

The stories have a common theme; i.e., the sources are beyond doubtful, hence "muck."

@Thinkerbell Yeah, but what does that even mean in the age of alternate facts where 70 million people believe only one man and not their eyes and ears.

This looked like misinformation/fake news to me, but suppose it's a false flag Antifa thing, or maybe a reverse false flag thing.

I mean, I know I shouldn't believe what I read if it isn't blessed by Herr Trump, but do we just have to wait for him to tweet it's bullshit when he might say otherwise later if it suits whatever cockamamamy story he may later come up with?

@MistyCee

You should believe what makes common sense, and which can be verified by a number of sources with differing political slants.

Elementary, my dear Misty, even if it takes some effort.

As for Trump, of course he spouts a lot of bs, and I have no doubt that he has engaged in a lot of shady business practices; you don't build skyscrapers in NYC without greasing a lot of corrupt palms, for example.

But that isn't why Democrat pols and their lapdog media hate him so much.

They hate him because he spilled the beans on their rampant corruption.
THAT is the biggest no-no in the Old Boys and Girls Club.

They would have looked the other way on everything, had he not done THAT. 😱

@Thinkerbell Don't take this personally, but that's exactly a big part of that I find so offensive about Trumpism in terms of whataboutism, distraction and dishonesty.

I don't really care if Obama hates Trump because he exposed the "fact" that he was born in Kenya, or that Hillary hates him for exposing her involvement with PizzaGate nearly as much as the fact that the guy promoted crap like that, contradicts himself constantly and winks at everyone when he says, FU to the rules and norms and all the suckers who play by them.


Seriously, was "first I need you to do me a favor" "perfect," or was it a perfectly permissible shake down?

I really don't think it matters whether other people do it too. I don't trust him, nor do I trust people who don't don't see the dishonesty or don't see it as objectionable because for whatever reason, they think he'll cut them in on his action if they help him.

@MistyCee


SMH, so it's ok when your guys do it, but NOT when the other guys do it. 🙄

Example: the "Russia collusion" nonsense was perfectly OK, but the birther nonsense was BAD.

In fact, one could argue that the nonsensical claims promulgated by Democrats are worse, since they tend to cost many millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

P.S. We had a fairly extended discussion concerning whataboutisms some time ago, but I see the points I made (which you were unable to refute) have gone in one of your ears and out the other. 🙄 🙄 🙄

@Thinkerbell
It's NOT ok, in my book.

I'll give you that Trump's birther crap didn't likely cost a fraction of what the Mueller investigation did, of course, but it was apples and oranges, and the feds got convictions and judgments out of it, despite the fact that Mueller wasn't allowed to prosecute Trump and stayed clear of Trump's business, i.e., refused to even start following the money.


Ultimately, though, if apples are criminal, I think they should be treated as such, as should oranges

@MistyCee In otherwords do as I say not as I do and dont remind me of all the other times libs screwed up? How convenient. So you dont like the first amendment now?

@TexChik Flooding the zone with bullshit a la Bannon?

My problem with whatboutisms isn't that they can't be relevant, but that they are usually a distraction from the issue at hand, or, the particular piece of fruit being examined.

Were Stalin and Mao's killings ok because Hitler also killed millions?

I don't think so and I don't think whatabout the millions of documents Obama took is relevant to the issue of what Trump might be alleged to have done, at least without context.

@MistyCee


Oy, that old saw again,,, 🙄

Of COURSE a special counsel can't prosecute a sitting president; the only remedy is impeachment by the House and removal from office by the Senate on conviction.

But Mueller COULD have made a recommendation to the House on impeachment, if he had the goods on Trump, like Cox did on Nixon, and Starr did on Clinton.

The difference was that Cox and Starr DID have the goods, and Mueller DIDN'T. 🙄 🙄


Convictions for crimes (at least one of them 10 years old) unrelated to "Russia collusion," which was why Mueller was appointed in the first place.
With a two-year investigation with a staff of 20 zealous partisan lawyers, I doubt that many DC denizens could come out without being charged and convicted of something or other. 🙄 🙄 🙄


One would be hard-pressed to conclude that you believe that, just by reading your
incessant "Trumpist" (yada-yada-yada) comments. 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

@MistyCee That's because you cant look past your liberal bias. What a lib does is ok, what Trump does is a capital offense. There is your bullshit right there. The lib hypocrisy is stifling and disgusting. All of Trump's documents were declassified, the government knew exactly where they were and even asked him to keep them secure which he did per their recommendations. I believe it is more likely the FBI was looking for damning evidence against them and the libs, and used this rouse as a way a forcing entry to search for them. Taking his passports was a chickenshit move, and illegal since it was not listed in the warrant.

@Thinkerbell Mueller actually kind of did make a recommendation, laying out instances of potential obstruction in addition to qualifying the scope of his Russia inquiry very carefully and not investigating very hard or trying to pin down or essentially "incriminate"Trump by asking him anything under oath and letting his lawyers answer for him.

It's water under the bridge, but no matter how often the lie gets repeated that Trump was exonerated, that's still not what happened.

@MistyCee

It's not the purpose of a prosecutor to "exonerate."
The purpose is to come up with the GOODS, and Mueller DIDN'T, hence no recommendation, "kinda" or otherwise.

What prosecutor says to a jury, "Well, I can't exonerate the defendant, so I kinda recommend that you find him guilty."? 🙄 🙄 🙄

@Thinkerbell Lol. Mueller did what he was hired to do.

@MistyCee

Mueller was hired to not find that anyone in the Trump campaign had colluded or conspired with the Russian government?

And to make an abject fool of himself for 6 hours on national TV?

After Schiff and the lapdog media had breathlessly promised that he would get the goods on Trump for the better part of two years?

[media=https://youtu.be/yLwRnREB3L4]

I must admit, Misty, you have a great sense of humor, even if it is unintentional... 😂 😂 😂

@MistyCee admire you for the energy you put into trying to convince the willfully unconvinceable about facts and truth

@Thinkerbell Yeah, that's why Schiff hired him I guess.

@tindrummer thanks. I'm about done for the night and slipping into sarcasm though.

Let's see who remembers who hired Mueller and why.

@MistyCee Never Trumpers, Rinos, and libs ...basically the swamp, because Trump was going to screw up their income streams.

@MistyCee

No, Misty, Schiff didn't hire Mueller, and neither did the lapdog media.
But that didn't stop them from breathlessly promising that he would get the goods on Trump for the better part of two years. 😂 😂 😂