<<< Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ Poll >>>

[George Core]

(Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
swamps reporting this?)


Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ
Poll

by Mark Murray


Nearly two-thirds of Americans give President Donald Trump poor
or middling marks for his first 100 days in office, including a
plurality who say he's off to a "poor start," according to
results from a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Forty-five percent of respondents in the survey believe Trump
is off to a poor start, with an additional 19 percent who say
it's been "only a fair start." That's compared with a combined
35 percent who think the president's first three months in
office have been either "good" or "great."

Trump's 100th day in office takes place on April 29.

By contrast, in the exact same question from April 2009 NBC/WSJ
poll, 54 percent of Americans said that Barack Obama's first
100 days had gotten off to either a good or great start, while
25 percent said they were fair, and 21 percent called them
poor.

Trump's overall job-approval rating stands at 40 percent — down
four points from February. It's the lowest job-approval rating
for a new president at this 100-day stage in the history of the
NBC/WSJ poll.


NBC News
At this same point in time of their presidencies, Obama's
overall rating stood at 61 percent in the poll, George W.
Bush's was at 56 percent and Bill Clinton's was at 52 percent.

By party, 82 percent of Republicans approve of Trump's job,
versus just 7 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of
independents who give the president a thumbs-up.


NBC News
Forty percent of Americans approve of Trump's handling of
foreign policy, while 44 percent approve of his economic
handling.

Asked if Trump's first 100 days have been more effective or
less effective than his predecessors' starts, 44 percent said
Trump's beginning has been less effective, and 32 percent said
it had been more effective; 22 percent said it's been about as
effective.

And 46 percent say that Trump's leadership and plans for the
country make them feel more hopeful, versus 52 percent who say
they make them feel more doubtful.

That's a significant departure from April 2009, when 64 percent
of Americans said that Obama's leadership and plans had made
them feel more hopeful, while 30 percent were more doubtful.

Erosion in Trump's numbers

The new NBC/WSJ poll also shows an erosion in some of Trump's
top perceived qualities, with 50 percent of respondents giving
Trump high marks for being firm and decisive in his decision-
making - down from the 57 percent who gave him high marks here
in February.

Another 39 percent of Americans give him high marks for
changing business as usual in Washington - down from 45 percent
two months ago.

Thirty-nine percent give him high marks for being effective and
getting things done - down from 46 percent who said this back
in February.

And only 25 percent give him high marks for being honest and
trustworthy - down from 34 percent.

Meanwhile, his standing is mostly unchanged when it comes to
his perceived weaknesses: Just 27 percent give him high marks
for being knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the
presidency, and only 21 percent give him high marks for having
the right temperament.

Play Data Download: Partisan Divide True For Sports Fans, Too
Facebook Twitter Embed
Data Download: Partisan Divide True For Sports Fans, Too 1:41
Sixty-Two percent support Trump's military action in Syria

The best news for President Trump in the poll is on the issue
of Syria.

Sixty-two percent of Americans say they support the Trump
administration's recent military action in response to the
Syrian government's chemical-weapon attack against its own
people.

By party, 88 percent of Republicans, 43 percent of Democrats
and 58 percent of independents back that recent military
action.

And 50 percent of all Americans say they approve of Trump's
handling of Syria - 10 points higher than his overall approval
rating.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted April 17-20 of 900 adults,
including more than 400 who were interviewed by cell phone. The
poll's overall margin of error is plus-minus 3.3 percentage
points.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/public-gives-
trump-low-marks-first-100-days-nbc-news-n749756?
google_editors_picks=true

[Scout]

"George Core" <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA760A944F7...@213.239.209.88...

> (Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
> swamps reporting this?)
>
>
> Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ
> Poll
>
> by Mark Murray
>
>
> Nearly two-thirds of Americans give President Donald Trump poor
> or middling marks for his first 100 days in office, including a
> plurality who say he's off to a "poor start," according to
> results from a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Big surprise since it wouldn't matter how great Trump is doing, at least 40%
would mark him down anyway.....or shall we forget the anti-Trump protests
STILL taking place?

Sorry, but I remember when NBC News/Wall Street Journal were telling us how
the polls shows that Hillary was a shoe in and the election merely a
formality.

Sorry, just because they claim to have a poll, does NOT automatically mean
the results reflect the feelings of America as a whole.

Heck, I bet the overwhelming majority of people asked to respond to this
poll were Hillary supporters in highly democratic urban areas.....

[FPP]

... and you'd lose that bet.

--
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the
Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps
themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins

[max headroom]

In news:odlmva$upm$1...@dont-email.me, Scout <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> typed:

> "George Core" <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA760A944F7...@213.239.209.88...

>> (Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
>> swamps reporting this?)

>> Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ
>> Poll

>> by Mark Murray


>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans give President Donald Trump poor
>> or middling marks for his first 100 days in office, including a
>> plurality who say he's off to a "poor start," according to
>> results from a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

> Big surprise since it wouldn't matter how great Trump is doing, at least 40%
> would mark him down anyway.....or shall we forget the anti-Trump protests
> STILL taking place?

> Sorry, but I remember when NBC News/Wall Street Journal were telling us how
> the polls shows that Hillary was a shoe in and the election merely a
> formality.

> Sorry, just because they claim to have a poll, does NOT automatically mean
> the results reflect the feelings of America as a whole.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last week, "Asked how they would vote if the
election were held today, 43 say they would support Trump and 40 percent say Clinton."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nearing-100-days-trumps-approval-at-record-lows-but-his-base-is-holding/2017/04/22/a513a466-26b4-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html

(Why aren't Trump's radical leftwing fabrication factory fever swamps reporting this?)

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:odluf7$pbe$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/24/17 4:28 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "George Core" <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA760A944F7...@213.239.209.88...
>>> (Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
>>> swamps reporting this?)
>>>
>>>
>>> Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ
>>> Poll
>>>
>>> by Mark Murray
>>>
>>>
>>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans give President Donald Trump poor
>>> or middling marks for his first 100 days in office, including a
>>> plurality who say he's off to a "poor start," according to
>>> results from a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
>>
>> Big surprise since it wouldn't matter how great Trump is doing, at least
>> 40% would mark him down anyway.....or shall we forget the anti-Trump
>> protests STILL taking place?
>>
>> Sorry, but I remember when NBC News/Wall Street Journal were telling us
>> how the polls shows that Hillary was a shoe in and the election merely a
>> formality.
>>
>> Sorry, just because they claim to have a poll, does NOT automatically
>> mean the results reflect the feelings of America as a whole.
>>
>> Heck, I bet the overwhelming majority of people asked to respond to this
>> poll were Hillary supporters in highly democratic urban areas.....
>
> ... and you'd lose that bet.

Fine...now let's see your evidence.

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:odmfos$tnf$2...@dont-email.me...

Heck, why didn't they jump all over the MSN poll that was briefly up in
which with about 190k responses, showed that if the 2016 election were held
that day, Trump would have gotten about 43% of the vote, Hillary only about
35% and about 3% of another candidate.

That was only about a month ago. Apparently they take down, and ignore polls
that don't produce the results they want to see.

So again, the evidence is that such polls mean nothing but rather only
reflect what those who took/promote them want to see.

[Fred Oinka]

From the same people who told us Trump had no chance to win the election. Your batting 1000 there, buddy!

[FPP]

Fine, here it is:

You made an offhand supposition that's not based on any objective facts
- just an opinion.
You bet on something you can't justify. You lose.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odoik2$l9d$1...@dont-email.me...

True, but that doesn't make your claim or opinion any more valid.

> You bet on something you can't justify. You lose.

And yet, based on poll results vs real world results, polls seem wildly
inaccurate.

Otherwise it would be President Clinton.

Oh, but despite the polls she lost...big time.

My point is still valid, the accuracy of such polls is seriously in
question.

Indeed if we are to go with polls do you realize that Trump would still get
42% of the vote, while Hillary could only manage 35%?

That's polling nearly 900K people.

[Buzz Forward]

Nope. She won in the popular vote, and hardly suffered a "landslide"
loss in the electoral college. Trump's electoral college victory margin
wasn't the smallest ever, but it was pretty small.

[FPP]

I'm not claiming anything. I'm stating you'd lose your bet because you
have zero evidence to prove it.

As far as the rest goes, that's pretty on the money. Polls are
snapshots that take into account what people tell them.

That's never a good bet.

[Scout]

"Buzz Forward"
<kick.jerry.sauks.fat.p...@everywhere.now> wrote in
message news:S0RLA.4$Qa...@fx10.iad...

Which means, exactly nothing. It would be like claiming a football team won
the game despite having scored fewer points because they gained more yardage
on the plays.

>and hardly suffered a "landslide" loss in the electoral college.

Whatever, he won by a clear and solid majority. May not have been a
landslide, but on the other hand I didn't say it was.

> Trump's electoral college victory margin wasn't the smallest ever, but it
> was pretty small.

He beat her by over 7% in the electoral college which is a big loss.



But hey, if it makes you feel better to claim that Hillary ran for more
yards, or that she was 'barely' defeated, feel free. In the end he point a
lot more points on the board than she did, and had a clear and decisive
victory. Basically the exact OPPOSITE of what the 'polls' indicated.

So again...the question of the validity of such polls is very much in
question.

On March 31st MSN ran the following poll:

"If the presidential election were held again today, who would get your
vote?"

With nearly 900K responses the results were:

"Hillary Clinton - 35%"
"Donald Trump - 42%"
"Another candidate - 19%"
"I wouldn't vote - 4%"

If we are to believe the polls, then in about 3 months Hillary went from
massively popular to a person of only moderate interest to people.

Which polls do we believe?

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odopfc$6mk$2...@dont-email.me...

Sorry, but I don't need to know the outcome to place a bet.

I place it because I believe the odds are in my favor.

Now you can try to show me that I'm wrong, but simply saying I don't know
the answer doesn't automatically mean my bet won't and can't win.

> As far as the rest goes, that's pretty on the money. Polls are snapshots
> that take into account what people tell them.
>
> That's never a good bet.

Yep, now given the real world results just a couple of months ago....

Then add that to the fact the liberals are still protesting the man's
election and would refuse to admit he's done anything positive towards his
goals.

And finally that the polls declaring Hillary's sweeping victory and this
poll were almost certainly done in exactly the same manner....

Nope, I think it's a pretty reasonable bit with a better than average chance
of being on the right side of of the odds....

You seem to opposite it, well, because you don't like Trump, and can't
believe that people would continue to support him, despite the progress he's
made in the first few months in carrying out his campaign promises.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but I suspect very few liberals would agree
Trump is doing good no matter how well he was doing so.

[trotsky]

No, Trump did. So you're agreeing he's a liar?

[Scout]

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:J0pMA.115227$KE1.1...@fx42.iad...

Nope, it's a POV and an opinion.

Meanwhile you have confirmed that what I said was right.

[FPP]

Whatever you agree with Trump on today, he'll disagree with you on it
tomorrow.
--
"Take a Tic-Tac and grab 'em by the pussy is the closest thing to a plan
Donald Trump has described this entire election." -Samantha Bee

[FPP]

Yup... he's a liar, and only a moron supports someone they know is a liar.

[FPP]

If you're smart, only the one on election day.

[FPP]

Too bad the polls didn't take into account the dishonesty of the
Republican candidate, the dishonesty of the media in chasing irrelevant
emails, the dishonesty of the FBI by violating their own guidelines and
the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.

But sure... continue to blame the polls. That's the easiest story to
understand.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odtrqt$qi7$1...@dont-email.me...

As opposed to the dishonesty of the Democrat candidate?

Yea, the polls certainly didn't account for that....or they might have been
more accurate.

> the dishonesty of the media

Yea, but they were doing all they can to collude with Clinton to get her
elected. They still failed.

> in chasing irrelevant emails,

Not according to the FBI.

By their own report she violated all sorts of laws on the sending,
receiving, storage, sharing, and disposition of classified material.

But hey, as a liberal I'm sure you agree with her that National Security is
irrelevant.

> the dishonesty of the FBI by violating their own guidelines

Ah, but she told the FBI to disclose everything to the public. What's the
matter, upset with transparency in government?

> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.

Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.

> But sure... continue to blame the polls. That's the easiest story to
> understand.

Hey, I didn't say the polls were the only reason she lost, or even a reason
she lost. I simply stated that polls were massively inaccurate. Which they
clearly were. Even with all of what you talk about going on, the polls STILL
showed Hillary as a shoe in...but then you did mention something about a
dishonest media....

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odtrf7$omq$2...@dont-email.me...

You mean the one that Hillary LOST?

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odtrkb$omq$4...@dont-email.me...

So according to you he's a liar because he has a different opinion than you
do?

So much for your ability to judge dishonesty.

[FPP]

All bullshit that didn't address a single point.

Congrats.

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>> the dishonesty of the FBI by violating their own guidelines
>
> Ah, but she told the FBI to disclose everything to the public. What's
> the matter, upset with transparency in government?

Your response is full of shit.

Comey was already investigating Trump for the Russia connection we all
KNOW is there, but wouldn't say anything so he didn't tip the election
one way or the other.

Then he came out months later and did exactly that, when it hurt Hillary.

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>> the dishonesty of the media
>
> Yea, but they were doing all they can to collude with Clinton to get her
> elected. They still failed.

Emails, emails emails... with nothing there.

Trump defrauded his students and contractors, paid bribes to 2 AG's and
admitted one was paid illegally.

He used Foundation money to pay his debts and buy portraits of himself.

Yeah, tell me which one the media pounced on every month.

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>

>> in chasing irrelevant emails,
>
> Not according to the FBI.
>
> By their own report she violated all sorts of laws on the sending,
> receiving, storage, sharing, and disposition of classified material.

So what were those "laws" you're imagining?

Because all I heard Comey say is that no prosecutor would have brought a
case - and he recommended the same.

Liar.

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.
>
> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.

You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?

17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.

But you know better, don't you?

You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.

[FPP]

Figured out all by yourself, did you? Well, it's a start... baby steps,
baby steps...

[max headroom]

In news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.

>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.

> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?

> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.

As fact, or probability?

> But you know better, don't you?

Obviously you think you do.

> You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.

And you're a partisan shill.

The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

[FPP]

And you're a fucking dimwit.
Facts are facts. Try learning a few.

> • In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the election attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, ruling out the possibility that it was ordered by intelligence officials or simply carried out by Kremlin supporters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0

Now look up what "unequivocal" means.
I'm not being paid to tutor halfwits...

--
Trump at his press conference: “To be honest, I inherited a mess.
Stephen Colbert: “No. You inherited a fortune. We elected a mess.”

[max headroom]

In news:odukkd$ern$1...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

>>> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>>>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.

>>>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.

>>> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?

>>> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.

>> As fact, or probability?

>>> But you know better, don't you?

>> Obviously you think you do.

>>> You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.

>> And you're a partisan shill.

>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

> And you're a fucking dimwit.
> Facts are facts. Try learning a few.

>> • In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the election
>> attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, ruling out the
>> possibility that it was ordered by intelligence officials or simply carried
>> out by Kremlin supporters.

> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0

> Now look up what "unequivocal" means.
> I'm not being paid to tutor halfwits...

Nor am I paid for my efforts-- I do it for pleasure.

"Questioned on Russia’s involvement, Mr Assange insisted Vladimir Putin’s administration was not
involved.

“'We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the
Russian government and it is not a state party,' he said.

“'If you look at most of his [Obama’s] statements, he doesn’t say that.

“'He doesn’t say that Wikileaks obtained its information from Russia, worked with Russia.'

"Asked if the Podesta files changed the course of the election, Mr Assange replied: 'Who knows, it’s
impossible to tell. But if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and
her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC [Democratic National Committee] head Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election.'”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-barack-obama-donald-trump-russia-hacking-claims-us-election-delegitimise-claims-a7507706.html

[FPP]

On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>

> And you're a partisan shill.
>
> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?
Or just the ones Trump is currently employing?

I'd love to know which it is. Either way, you are known by the company
you keep.
And I'm sure you feel right at home, now.

[FPP]

Quoting a guy who is holed up in a foreign embassy to evade justice
really lends your remarks a certain air.

One that is faintly reminiscent of rat turds.

[FPP]

I cite 17 American intelligence agencies.
You cite a rapist in hiding.

Way to go, Sparky!

[trotsky]

Yes, I predict he'll reverse his stance on N. Korea next.

[max headroom]

In news:oduoto$olm$4...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

Yes, the poor persecuted social justice warrior has made many enemies... many who were former
supporters.

> One that is faintly reminiscent of rat turds.

I'll have to defer to your intimate knowledge on that scent.

[max headroom]

In news:odup1h$olm$5...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> I cite 17 American intelligence agencies....

Name them.

> You cite a rapist in hiding.

"Alleged" rapist. Ya know, like the Duke lacrosse team.

> Way to go, Sparky!

[max headroom]

In news:oduonf$olm$2...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> And you're a partisan shill.

>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

> Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?

Actually, I got that one from NPR. When I stopped laughing, I had to look up the source.

Accusing your detractors of Nazi sympathies is so, so... Democratic!

Why am I not surprised?

> Or just the ones Trump is currently employing?

> I'd love to know which it is. Either way, you are known by the company
> you keep.
> And I'm sure you feel right at home, now.

So where do you get your talking points? TalkingPointsMemo.com? Dailykos? MoveOn?

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Accusing someone of sexual crimes is as generic as taxing CO2....
everyone is susceptible.

--
That's Karma

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/28/2017 01:43 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:
>>
>>> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.
>>
>>>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.
>>
>>> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?
>>
>>> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.
>>
>> As fact, or probability?
>>
>>> But you know better, don't you?
>>
>> Obviously you think you do.
>>
>>> You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.
>>
>> And you're a partisan shill.
>>
>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with
>> it.
>
>
> And you're a fucking dimwit.
> Facts are facts. Try learning a few.
>
>> • In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the
>> election attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia,
>> ruling out the possibility that it was ordered by intelligence
>> officials or simply carried out by Kremlin supporters.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0
>
>
> Now look up what "unequivocal" means.
> I'm not being paid to tutor halfwits...
>

Too bad, the market to tutor halfwits is huge, it's equal to the number
of college graduates every year, and then some.


--
That's Karma

[Wiley E. Coyote]

George Core <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:XnsA760A944F7729bifferfitz@
213.239.209.88:

> (Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
> swamps reporting this?)

Whay aren't you dead?

--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017

[FPP]

Why? Are your fingers broken?

[FPP]

What Embassy did the Duke lacrosse team hide out in?

Go ahead... name it.

[FPP]

Yes, you keep sucking around "Mr. Assahat's" butt... that's what the
little nuggets of info you cite cling to.

[FPP]

Guess *you* just get used to it, after awhile, huh?

[FPP]

Oh, I forgot... somebody said "turd", and up pops Scotty...

[FPP]

On 4/28/17 10:28 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:oduonf$olm$2...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:
>
>> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> And you're a partisan shill.
>
>>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.
>
>> Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?
>
> Actually, I got that one from NPR. When I stopped laughing, I had to look up the source.

Really... well, that's some real bullshit there, maxie!
It's a DIRECT quote from President von Munchausen's personal Nazi
sympathizer, Sebastian v. Gorka.

> “The message I have, it’s a very simple one. It’s a bumper sticker, Sean: The era of the Pajama Boy is over January 20th, and the alpha males are back.” -S v. Gorka

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/18/gorka-era-pajama-boy-january-20th-alpha-males-back/

Know what the lowercase "v" represents? Of course you DO! He's a
member of a Nazi sympathizer organization back in Hungary.

Lack of NPR citation noted. But that was a real nice attempt!
Stick to lying to girls, you'll get farther.

Too easy!

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odud7r$smn$5...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>>> the dishonesty of the media
>>
>> Yea, but they were doing all they can to collude with Clinton to get her
>> elected. They still failed.
>
> Emails, emails emails... with nothing there.

Not according to the FBI...but hey, what do they know?

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odudap$smn$6...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>> in chasing irrelevant emails,
>>
>> Not according to the FBI.
>>
>> By their own report she violated all sorts of laws on the sending,
>> receiving, storage, sharing, and disposition of classified material.
>
> So what were those "laws" you're imagining?
>
> Because all I heard Comey say is that no prosecutor would have brought a
> case - and he recommended the same.

No, he recommended that it not be prosecuted, not that no prosecutor would,
or that a prosecution wouldn't result in a conviction. Per the FBI's OWN
release, Hillary's violation of the laws concerning classified information
is without question.

Now, it does make me wonder why Hillary wasn't prosecuted even though we
have people in jail for having done far less than Hillary has already been
shown to have done.

But hey, just because they didn't prosecute her doesn't make her innocent,
and the FBI's own report clearly states her guilt beyond question.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.
>>
>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.
>
> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?

If transparency is tampering, maybe, but it's never been proven they were
responsible.

> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.

They can state what they like, but no proof has been forthcoming.

But let's see it is true. So what?

How many times has the US interfered in Russian elections over the years?

Are we going to complain simply because they showed Americans what Hillary
and the DNC had been doing behind the scenes?

I will just note that if Clinton and the DNC weren't involved in dishonest,
unethical, and frankly trying to steal the election then the Russians would
have had nothing to find.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odukkd$ern$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:
>>
>>> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.
>>
>>>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.
>>
>>> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?
>>
>>> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.
>>
>> As fact, or probability?
>>
>>> But you know better, don't you?
>>
>> Obviously you think you do.
>>
>>> You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.
>>
>> And you're a partisan shill.
>>
>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with
>> it.
>
>
> And you're a fucking dimwit.
> Facts are facts. Try learning a few.
>
>> • In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the
>> election attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, ruling
>> out the possibility that it was ordered by intelligence officials or
>> simply carried out by Kremlin supporters.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0
>
> Now look up what "unequivocal" means.

Maybe you should note that the use of "unequivocal" was used by the author
as a matter of his personal option. While the report he cites only claims
"with high confidence" which means they are pretty sure he did so, but it's
not certain and they certainly can't prove it.

So clearly they did NOT state it as fact, you just assumed they did.

> I'm not being paid to tutor halfwits...

Good thing, because you would have to give yourself a refund.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oduoto$olm$4...@dont-email.me...

He would only need to evade justice if what he said were true.........

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odup1h$olm$5...@dont-email.me...

No, you cited ONE reporter, and even then you missed the fact that by his
own source it wasn't unequivocal.

It was indeed within the realm of possibility that Russia wasn't involved,
was never involved, and what they have as 'evidence' was about something
else entirely.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0huc$tlo$6...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

No, your credibility is.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0i55$tlo$9...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

Again, I'll defer to your intimate knowledge of the subject.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0hvm$tlo$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

To the best of my knowledge, they never claimed political persecution.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0i3f$tlo$8...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

Ah, I love a thoughtful, well-reasoned debate.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0igu$tf$1...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> On 4/28/17 10:28 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:oduonf$olm$2...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

>>> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:

>>>> And you're a partisan shill.

>>>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

>>> Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?

>> Actually, I got that one from NPR. When I stopped laughing, I had to look up
>> the source.

> Really... well, that's some real bullshit there, maxie!
> It's a DIRECT quote from President von Munchausen's personal Nazi
> sympathizer, Sebastian v. Gorka.

>> “The message I have, it’s a very simple one. It’s a bumper sticker, Sean:
>> The era of the Pajama Boy is over January 20th, and the alpha males are
>> back.” -S v. Gorka

> http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/18/gorka-era-pajama-boy-january-20th-alpha-males-back/

> Know what the lowercase "v" represents? Of course you DO! He'st a

> member of a Nazi sympathizer organization back in Hungary.

Oh, like Ludwig v. Beethoven? Richard v. Mises? Otto v. Bismarck?

Hot damn, the gems one learns on Usenet! Almost as good as the covers of NATIONAL ENQUIRER we see in
the checkout lanes of grocery stores.

> Lack of NPR citation noted. But that was a real nice attempt!...

Do you maintain logs when you listen to the radio?

> Stick to lying to girls, you'll get farther.

Many progressives think their opponents tell only lies. Nice to know you're not unique.

> Too easy!

I bet you hear that a lot.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/24/517086461/trump-adviser-sebastian-gorka-threatens-legal-action-over-tweets

[Wiley E. Coyote]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:odup1h$olm$5...@dont-email.me:

> I cite 17 American intelligence agencies.

Name them. Provide thier assessments.

> You cite a rapist in hiding.

Billy isn't hiding from anyone except his wife,

[Wiley E. Coyote]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in
news:oe14ho$2ud$5...@dont-email.me:

What did you expect? HRC supporters/Democrats fall into 2 broad categories:
severly mentally ill or corrupt to the soul.

Liberalism is a mental illness, after all, that destroys reason or destroys
morality. It must be extinguised.

Those that can be should be saved. As for the rest, they must be terminated
lest they reinfect civilation.

[Wiley E. Coyote]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:oe0igu$tf$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 4/28/17 10:28 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:oduonf$olm$2...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:
>>
>>> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>
>>>> And you're a partisan shill.
>>
>>>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal
>>>> with it.
>>
>>> Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?
>>
>> Actually, I got that one from NPR. When I stopped laughing, I had to
>> look up the source.
>
> Really... well, that's some real bullshit there, maxie!
> It's a DIRECT quote from President von Munchausen's personal Nazi
> sympathizer, Sebastian v. Gorka.
>
>> “The message I have, it’s a very simple one. It’s a bumper sticker,
>> Sean: The era of the Pajama Boy is over January 20th, and the alpha
>> males are back.” -S v. Gorka
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/18/gorka-era-pajama-bo
> y-january-20th-alpha-males-back/
>
> Know what the lowercase "v" represents? Of course you DO! He's a
> member of a Nazi sympathizer organization back in Hungary.
>
> Lack of NPR citation noted. But that was a real nice attempt!
> Stick to lying to girls, you'll get farther.
>
> Too easy!

NPR = Nazi Propagada Reguritated.

Have you ever considered the utter irony of "tolerant, antibigotry"
progressive pukes making untrue statements like these?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mitchprothero/how-a-trump-adviser-failed-upwards-
from-hungary-to-the?utm_term=.nf0R1wK3Bm#.wpjnQP1A0W

You're about 2 days behind the news, Sparky. It's a repulsive hit piece by
another lefty piece of shit but he does admit that the filth being spewed
by you filth about Gorka is wrong.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

It was all politics... rich verses poor. Politics of the Left, class
warfare. Make them hate one another and use envy and jealousy, the Left
painted the La cross team as rich kids and the prosecutor ended up in
trouble because of the pursuit of politics in the case rather than
seeking justice.

--
That's Karma

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

The obvious question is why do we have 17 intelligence agencies to spy
on Americans..... and when have 2 agencies agreed much less 17 of them,
that in and of its self is troubling and a reason for concern that
something about that statement of 17 agencies all telling the same
story, is very wrong.


--
That's Karma

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/28/2017 07:10 PM, FPP wrote:

The obvious question is why do we have 17 intelligence agencies to spy

on Americans..... and when we have 2 agencies agreeing, much less 17 of
them. That in and of its self is troubling and a reason for concern that

something about that statement of 17 agencies all telling the same
story, is very wrong.

Why would 17 agencies have the same ability and confirm the same
intelligence precisely when the ObamaRegime needed them to do it?

It reminds me of the efficiency of Communist governments that ordered
the firing squad out before the judges had the verdict. They knew what
the judges verdict was before the judge did.

--
That's Karma

[FPP]

Yup. "The Prosecutor".
Not the left, or the right... "the prosecutor".

One man that wanted to make a name for himself.
Credit where credit is due.

--
Trump at his press conference: “To be honest, I inherited a mess.
Stephen Colbert: “No. You inherited a fortune. We elected a mess.”

[FPP]

And the obvious answer is that we don't.

The truth is universal. When something is true, everyone tells it that way.
This is 5th grade reasoning, Scotty.

If you wake up one morning and there is snow on the ground, it isn't
"very wrong" if every meteorologist told you we had a storm last night.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oe37ig$7b4$4...@dont-email.me...

And yet you can't cite a single agency that claims they know this for the
truth.

Best you can get is a "high level of confidence"...which means there is room
for error.

[FPP]

That's because you're ignorant as to how intelligence agencies work.

Like I said, if you go to sleep and the ground is clear but when you
wake up there is a foot of snow on the ground, there is a high level of
confidence that there was a snowstorm last night.

But you're saying that's not good enough for you. You need to have
actually see the storm in order to know it actually happened?

If you drop a hammer over your foot, and your foot breaks - you won't
believe the hammer broke your foot unless you actually see the hammer hit?

All that means it that you're a moron.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oe5qp4$lgt$1...@dont-email.me...

On the contrary, I'm well aware of how they work and rarely can they assert
something as they know "for the truth".

But hey, you made the assertion, maybe YOU don't have any idea of how the

intelligence agencies work.

>
> Like I said, if you go to sleep and the ground is clear but when you wake
> up there is a foot of snow on the ground, there is a high level of
> confidence that there was a snowstorm last night.

If you say so, but it would also eliminate your claim of them asserting that
Russian involvement is known "for the truth".

[FPP]

Nope. Not at all.
What do you think the FBI is doing? And both Houses of Congress?

The FBI and the DOJ KNEW Flynn was in contact with the Russians and
discussing things he shouldn't have been. He then lied to them about
it, when questioned.

Sally Yates warned the White House about this.
Trump and his team have had extensive contacts with Russia, and more
than one has lied about them when questioned.

Michael Flynn
Carter Page.
Roger Stone.
Jeff Sessions.
Jared Kushner.
JD Gordon.
Paul Manafort.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/trump-russia/?utm_term=.36332d2e349d

You don't want to believe in gravity, fine.
But if you fall off a building, it really doesn't matter what your
ignorant beliefs are.

[Wiley E. Coyote]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:oe5qp4$lgt$1...@dont-email.me:

> That's because you're ignorant as to how intelligence agencies work.

And you;'re a fucking expert? Post your creds, sparky.

> Like I said, if you go to sleep and the ground is clear but when you
> wake up there is a foot of snow on the ground, there is a high level of
> confidence that there was a snowstorm last night.

What is your foot of snow regarding Trump? Where is the evidence that the
Russians, specifically, in some way influenced the election. The hacks of the
Democrats email, no one has denied that the emails and thier contents aren't
true, they only whine that they were released.

If the Russians did hack the email all they did was spread vicious truths
about HRC. I guess in your mind that is bad.

Pity the American press was incapable of discovering those vicious truths and
reporting them.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oe7304$ce2$1...@dont-email.me...

If they KNEW about it....they why did they need to investigate?

Sorry, they may have SUSPECTED, but that's a far cry from knowing as an
absolute fact.

>
> Sally Yates warned the White House about this.
> Trump and his team have had extensive contacts with Russia, and more than
> one has lied about them when questioned.

So did Obama and his staff. Indeed I am well informed that Obama personally
had numerous meetings with Vladimir Putin and other high ranking Russian
officials, as did many of Obama's closest associates.

However when Trump has "extensive contacts" with Russians then suddenly it's
something underhanded and suspect......

See the double standard? I bet you can't, even though you are certainly
using it.

[FPP]

That's how cases are built. Simple, isn't it. Try using your brain.
--
"Mike Pence will lead Trump's transition team. Which is weird, because
normally when people transition, Pence sends them to conversion
therapy." -Colin Jost

[FPP]

Obama was President... and has the authority to conduct Foreign Affairs
lies with him.

Trump was an Assclown, and is legally prohibited by the Logan Act to
deal in terms of American policy with foreign actors.

If you have a brain, try using it. This stuff isn't hard.

Flynn talking about US sanctions to the Russians is illegal. Period.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oej1or$df6$1...@dont-email.me...

If they KNEW it, then they already had a case. If they need to build a case,
then they don't really KNOW, do they?

Basic logic, something you clearly don't understand.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oej1u9$gmm$1...@dont-email.me...

So? Trump was a businessman and had the authority to consider and conduct
business in other countries.

Do you think the US does NO business with Russia?

> Trump was an Assclown, and is legally prohibited by the Logan Act to deal
> in terms of American policy with foreign actors.

If you can show me that Trump was engaged in making American foreign policy.

Until then, you're just making up excuses for your bullshit feelings about
the man.

>
> If you have a brain, try using it. This stuff isn't hard.

Maybe you should start, because so far the one that can't seem to understand
it is you.

> Flynn talking about US sanctions to the Russians is illegal. Period.

On the contrary. There is no federal law that prohibits his freedom of
speech. He can speak about US sanctions, as can you, I or anyone else, and
it doesn't matter WHO we are talking to. Now if you can show he
misrepresented himself as a US official speaking for the US
government...then you don't have a case.

He can speak about current US sanctions, proposed US sanctions, sanctions
Trump may propose as President, heck, he can even speak about sanctions he
would like to see the US impose, and NO crime would be committed.

If you feel otherwise, cite the statute in the US Code of Law that would
prohibit his free speech in these matters.

Try using your brain....it's clearly not doing anything for you the why
you're currently ignoring it.

[FPP]

That's another stupid statement that lacks the understanding of how the
system works.
They DO already HAVE a case. What they're doing now is MAKING that case.

This is how the system works.

--
Trump: If I win, you go to jail, if I lose, I will not accept the
results of the election.
Make America Great Again? -Warren Leight

[FPP]

Nope. 100% false.

You're equating doing business with conducting Foreign Affairs. One is
legal, with many restrictions.

The latter is 100% illegal. The Logan Act.

[FPP]

I did.

Flynn, as part of the Trump transition team was overheard discussing
the upcoming Obama sanctions with the Russian ambassador - a
representative of the Russian government.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.70e84821064f

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-1486769138

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/official-flynn-discussed-sanctions-russians-taking-office-n719271

Those are what the report says, and what the Acting AG warned the Trump
Administration about. You will hear this on Monday, when she testifies.

[FPP]

On 5/7/17 8:58 AM, Scout wrote:
>

> On the contrary. There is no federal law that prohibits his freedom of
> speech. He can speak about US sanctions, as can you, I or anyone else,
> and it doesn't matter WHO we are talking to. Now if you can show he
> misrepresented himself as a US official speaking for the US
> government...then you don't have a case.
>
> He can speak about current US sanctions, proposed US sanctions,
> sanctions Trump may propose as President, heck, he can even speak about
> sanctions he would like to see the US impose, and NO crime would be
> committed.
>
> If you feel otherwise, cite the statute in the US Code of Law that would
> prohibit his free speech in these matters.

Moron:

953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or
carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government
or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures
or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,
in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or
to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself,
or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for
redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government
or any of its agents or subjects.

Moron.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oensqu$tn6$2...@dont-email.me...

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt....which would amount to KNOWING that
something is true.....

You would have them KNOW....and then seek the evidence of what you claim
they already have.

> They DO already HAVE a case.

Clearly they don't, or they wouldn't need to investigate, now would they?

>What they're doing now is MAKING that case.

Then they don't already have a case, otherwise there would be no need to
make that which you claim they already have.

Sorry, what they have is SUSPICION.....that's not knowing something, that's
suspecting something.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oensuf$tn6$3...@dont-email.me...

Please cite where is it illegal for business men to meet with foreign
officials concerning doing business with that country, be that building a
plant there, buying businesses, having a product made there, importing,
exporting, or otherwise being involved in any business activity within or
through that country.

---------------> Insert your legal cite here.

Otherwise, it looks like he certainly did have the authority to do so.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oent72$vdu$1...@dont-email.me...

No, you made assertions he did so.

> Flynn, as part of the Trump transition team was overheard discussing the
> upcoming Obama sanctions with the Russian ambassador - a representative of
> the Russian government.

Fine, but unless we're in some weird alternate universe Flynn isn't Donald
Trump.

Further as President elect, Trump certainly does have authority to discuss
policies that he may implement or attempt to have implemented once he takes
office.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to produce the statute that would deny
Flynn, or Trump for that matter, of their freedom of speech.

[FPP]

No, they have audio tapes. No suspicion about it. They confirm Flynn
lied, and was discussing sanctions.

It's on the audio tapes. That's why Yates warned the White House.

Your lies don't hold water.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oentca$vdu$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/7/17 8:58 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary. There is no federal law that prohibits his freedom of
>> speech. He can speak about US sanctions, as can you, I or anyone else,
>> and it doesn't matter WHO we are talking to. Now if you can show he
>> misrepresented himself as a US official speaking for the US
>> government...then you don't have a case.
>>
>> He can speak about current US sanctions, proposed US sanctions, sanctions
>> Trump may propose as President, heck, he can even speak about sanctions
>> he would like to see the US impose, and NO crime would be committed.
>>
>> If you feel otherwise, cite the statute in the US Code of Law that would
>> prohibit his free speech in these matters.
>
> Moron:
>
> 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
>
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
> authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or
> carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government
> or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or
> conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in
> relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to
> defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title
> or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Which wasn't done. Everything discussed was by your own admission purely
hypothetical and a matter of possible future actions. Further, by your own
admission this was done by President Elect Donald Trump's transition team,
which means that they certainly did have the authority of the United States
to discuss Donald Trump's possible policies when he took office.

[FPP]

No, I won't cite that. I didn't say it, so I'm not going to cite
anything about it.

After the election, Trump wasn't just a businessman. He was the
President-Elect - and his people are held to a different standard.

No need for me to cite support for something I haven't said.

[FPP]

Flynn was working for Trump. Flynn was Trump's NSA advisor. That
makes it Trump's problem.

Then Trump was warned about it, and did nothing for weeks.

The responsibility falls to Trump. In fact, Trump said so himself. He
said he didn't know Flynn was talking to Russians, but he would have to
told him to do so.

> The Republican was also asked whether he had instructed Mr Flynn to raise the issue of sanctions with Russia.
>
> He replied: “No I didn’t…Mike was doing his job. He was calling countries and his counterparts.
>
> “So it certainly would have been OK with me if he did it. I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it.
>
> “I didn’t direct him but I would have directed him because that’s his job.”
He was told what Flynn was doing, and he condoned it. Squirm out of that.

[FPP]

Moron, Trump can't do that until he takes the oath.
Not hypothetical. It's on the audio tapes of the wiretaps.

Transition teams DO NOT have the authority to conduct foreign affairs.
Or do you not know that only the President can legally do that, and we
only have one of them at a time?

The real president was taking actions, and the fake president was
interfering with those actions. The Logan Act, again.

Is that why Flynn is begging for immunity?
I have it on good authority that anyone asking for immunity is guilty of
a crime.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oeod9m$i6o$3...@dont-email.me...

Which doesn't establish the intent that is required under the law, much less
that he didn't have implied authority from the United States as the
representative of President-elect Donald Trump.

>
> It's on the audio tapes. That's why Yates warned the White House.

Big deal, so it's on tape.....doesn't mean he broke the law, and further by
your own claims, clearly that tape is inadequate to establish a case against
him due to the fact that they have to investigate further.

So, tell you what, when they ACTUALLY HAVE A CASE, then we can discuss it.
Until then, all I'm seeing is supposition, assumption, assertion, and
implication.

[Wiley E. Coyote]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:oeod9m$i6o$3...@dont-email.me:

> No, they have audio tapes. No suspicion about it. They confirm Flynn
> lied, and was discussing sanctions.
>
> It's on the audio tapes. That's why Yates warned the White House.
>

So fucking what? HRC's felonies are clear for all to see but up to now they
have been ignored. I say we apply the same standards to Flynn as HRC?

What do you say to that?

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oeofif$nsm$1...@dont-email.me...

Then you lose.

Unless you can show that a businessman can NOT do business in foreign
countries and thus by extension may need to meet and have meetings with
officials of those nations....then you don't have a case to assert that
Trump having such meetings is even remotely evidence of some sort of
underhanded nefarious activity.

Meanwhile I will note CEO's regularly meet with Putin.

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-meets-exxonmobil-new-ceo-woods/28362021.html
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-meets-exxonmobil-new-ceo-woods/28362021.html
https://www.stratfor.com/sample/situation-report/russia-putin-meets-siemens-ceo
https://sputniknews.com/business/2004120139774638/
http://www.lngworldnews.com/shell-ceo-meets-vladimir-putin/

Seems like it's business as usual.......unless it's Trump or his associates.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oeoft3$p1q$1...@dont-email.me...

Then it's not yours and you should shut up.

Meanwhile, still no evidence of any legal statute that they violated.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oeog4s$pjc$1...@dont-email.me...

Cite.

> Not hypothetical.

Until you prove your case, all you have is hypothetical.

> It's on the audio tapes of the wiretaps.

So? Doesn't mean it was criminal, as you have yet to produce any evidence
of.

[FPP]

Your opinion.

[FPP]

Your opinion.

[FPP]

Your opinion.

[FPP]

Your opinion.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ofae5h$dd4$3...@dont-email.me...

I acknowledge your surrender.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ofae5u$dd4$4...@dont-email.me...

And it looks like FPP is in total retreat, acknowledging defeat on all
fronts.

[FPP]