All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[pErvinalia]

That sums it up nicely.

[Cunt]

Why do you suppose Adam Schiff saved the testimony from that one witness?

Didn't REALLY want to have Trump removed? Didn't REALLY want to provide all the witness evidence?

Or is there a non-stupid explanation?

[Brian Peacock]

The witness evidence was ruled inadmissible by the Republican majority. Next.

[Tero]

https://twitter.com/QasimRashid/status/ ... 5651135488

[Cunt]

The witness evidence was ruled inadmissible by the Republican majority. Next.

You are quick to answer. Too bad you weren't convincing.

While presenting the Democrats' case for impeachment on the Senate floor, lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) kept referencing 17 witnesses who testified during the House impeachment inquiry. But there were 18 of them. Schiff and the Democrats are refusing to release the testimony of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, and according to Republicans who were present during Atkinson's closed-door testimony, the reason the transcript hasn't been released is because it proves both the whistleblower and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff did not tell the truth about their contact with each other.

So you don't even have to consider Trump, to dismiss this horseshit. Schiff-for-brains also insisted he had real evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.

I wonder why he keeps holding back the REAL evidence...

[Tero]

Trump whines about Fisa courts, unfairness and the usual shit. Jeff responds

31F7C0F3-4415-42E3-86F5-E9B73168E2D9.jpeg (104.39 KiB) Viewed 2206 times

[Cunt]

Is Trump waiting on Durham to reveal what is behind all those sealed indictments?

Or do any of you have an idea...?

[Tero]

[Tero]

Trump is the man! He brought conspiracy theories into the main stream (Trump plus Youtue):

A city council member in California took the dais and quoted from QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy theory about “deep state” traitors plotting against the president, concluding her remarks, “God bless Q.”

A man spouting QAnon beliefs about child sex trafficking swung a crowbar inside a historic Catholic chapel in Arizona, damaging the altar and then fleeing before being arrested.

And outside a Trump campaign rally in Florida, people in “Q” T-shirts stopped by a tent to hear outlandish tales of Democrats’ secretly torturing and killing children to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood.

What began online more than two years ago as an intricate, if baseless, conspiracy theory that quickly attracted thousands of followers has since found footholds in the offline world. QAnon has surfaced in political campaigns, criminal cases, merchandising and at least one college class. Last month, hundreds of QAnon enthusiasts gathered in a Tampa, Fla., park to listen to speakers and pick up literature, and in England, a supporter of President Trump and the Brexit leader Nigel Farage raised a “Q” flag over a Cornish castle.

Some QAnon fans are hardened conspiracy buffs who previously believed other fringe theories, such as the bogus claim that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were an “inside job.” But many QAnon adherents are everyday Americans who have found in Q’s messages a source of partisan energy, affirmation of their suspicions about powerful institutions or a feeling of having special knowledge. Some are older adults who discovered the theory through partisan Facebook groups or Twitter threads, and were drawn in by the movement’s promises of inside information from the White House (some QAnon devotees even believe that Mr. Trump posts himself, under the code name “Q+”). Others are seduced by the movement’s wild, often violent fantasies, including claims that Hollywood celebrities are part of a satanic child-trafficking ring.

In online chat rooms, Facebook groups and Twitter threads, QAnon followers discuss the hidden messages and symbols they believe to be exposed in Q’s posts, or “drops” — for example, because Q is the 17th letter of the alphabet, a reference by Mr. Trump to the number 17 is seen as a possible signal of his support for them.

They watch “Patriots’ Soapbox,” a YouTube call-in show devoted to coverage of QAnon, and other niche media projects that have popped up to fill the demand for Q-related content. Reddit barred a cluster of QAnon groups from its platform in 2018, after a spate of violent threats from members, and Apple pulled a popular QAnon app from its app store. But other social platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, still host large amounts of QAnon content. In general, these platforms do not prohibit conspiracy theories unless their adherents break other rules, such as policies against hate speech or targeted harassment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/us/p ... JLT-ibfexQ

[L'Emmerdeur]

The witness evidence was ruled inadmissible by the Republican majority. Next.

You are quick to answer. Too bad you weren't convincing.

While presenting the Democrats' case for impeachment on the Senate floor, lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) kept referencing 17 witnesses who testified during the House impeachment inquiry. But there were 18 of them. Schiff and the Democrats are refusing to release the testimony of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, and according to Republicans who were present during Atkinson's closed-door testimony, the reason the transcript hasn't been released is because it proves both the whistleblower and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff did not tell the truth about their contact with each other.

You so rarely bother to quote a source, it's little surprise that you don't seem to understand how to do it properly. Credibility is highly diminished if you don't actually cite the source with a link. Others here have learned how to do that, and I know you're capable of learning proper practice as well.

You've already plainly stated that you get your information (such as it is) from right wing sites, so why not actually cite them? I was able to eventually track down the source for the quote above: 'So That's Why Schiff Won't Release the Transcript of the 18th Witness'

I learned that the basis of the piece is an unsubstantiated claim by John Ratcliffe, a Republican congressman from Texas. It seems that you've decided any source that doesn't have a right wing slant is untrustworthy, so I'll cite The Washington Times, a solidly right wing newspaper. In its article about this, we at least get an explanation for why the transcript of Atkinson's briefing was not released.

An official on Mr. Schiff’s committee staff said the briefing with Mr. Atkinson was not conducted with the other two committees involved in the impeachment investigation, the Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees, and therefore did not qualify as a deposition.

“Contrary to what has been said,” the official said, “the chairman does not have the ability unilaterally to classify or declassify [an intelligence committee] transcript.”

Apparently the decision on whether to declassify the briefing or not wasn't up to Schiff alone. I expect you'll keep harping on Schiff's failure to release the transcript from what you call the '18th witness,' but it's clearly nothing more than hot air--an unsubstantiated talking point put out by a Republican congressman, and amplified by right wing propaganda sites.

So you don't even have to consider Trump, to dismiss this horseshit. Schiff-for-brains also insisted he had real evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.

I wonder why he keeps holding back the REAL evidence...

Schiff made a speech in which he laid out what he considers the evidence of collusion. I don't think you can cite any credible source that substantiates the accusation that Schiff claimed to have some other evidence which he never released. Again, I think it's obvious that you've decided to serve as a conduit for lame bullshit from right wing propaganda sites.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign,” he said. “My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help — no, instead that son said he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians. You might think it was ok that he took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s ok that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think it’s OK. I don’t.”

"You might think it's OK that [Flynn] secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining US sanctions & then lied about it to the FBI. You might say that's all OK -- that's just what you have to do to win... I think it's corrupt & evidence of collusion."

...

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility,” he added. “I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say, in terms of dirt on his opponent. You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser-designate secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK he lied about it to the FBI. You might say that’s all OK, that that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt, and evidence of collusion.”

In other words, Special Counsel Mueller’s inability to prove a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in no way “exonerates” the president of any wrongdoing. The president’s wrongdoing has already been proven. A four-page letter to Congress written by an attorney general Trump appointed because his first attorney general wouldn’t do enough to undercut the investigation doesn’t nullify any of the examples Schiff listed on Thursday.

“I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK,” concluded Schiff. “The day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day America lost its way.”

[source]

[Cunt]

Well, Lemmy, he SAID he had real evidence, but it didn't convince ANYONE important. I admit I don't always listen to him, but maybe that 18th bit of evidence will be released when Durham releases his work. Do you think the tens of thousands of sealed indictments are primarily for one kind of crime? Or just a bunch of coincidences?

Maybe I read too much into Schiffs certainty, but that's ok. He still could have built a better case before forwarding it to the grown-ups for decision.

He could called more witnesses, except for that whole 'due process' thing that was in his way. SUCH a rush, then they waited a month, to time their Peach Mint so that it took place at a time when some folks would have preferred to be working in their primary.

-------------------

Is the NYT the one Bloomburg owns? Or is that Bezos' paper?

qanon is fun to follow. It's especially helpful in knowing what to expect.

Like Durham being the real significant investigation. And their reminders about the tens of thousands of sealed indictments (that you don't seem interested in)

[L'Emmerdeur]

Just a reminder: "Fun" ≠ "Credible"

[Cunt]

Just a reminder: "Fun" ≠ "Credible"

It doesn't, but that's why I also enjoy CNN, MSNBC and WaPo.

With qanon though, it seems like I'm stuck on one question, and it's tough to get people to take it seriously.

Is q posting from inside Trumps inner circle?

I have heard people dismiss that he is, but most of them don't even understand the mounting 'coincidences', just repeat MSM talking points.

If it IS an insider, then this is sort of important.

If it is NOT an insider, then there are still lots of leaks (or some other explanation for all the coordinated tweets...)

Have you taken a serious look? I think it is basically a Republican leak channel, the same way that CNN is a Democrat leak channel.

[L'Emmerdeur]

If it is an insider, and they believe the 'breadcrumbs' are depictions of fact, they are seriously delusional. I come to that conclusion because of assertions by 'Q' that are clearly and obviously fantastical rubbish. Trump was secretly working with Mueller to ensnare bad people. Tom Hanks is a pedophile. Hillary Clinton oversees and directs international death squads. And so on. Then there is the fact that pretty much every important prediction made by 'Q' has failed to come to pass. I'm not amazed that some people believe in blatant nonsense, but that belief by no means gives the slightest credibility to QAnon. Rather it serves as a demonstration of their appalling gullibility.

Equating mainstream media to QAnon is the sign of somebody who is unable to discriminate between delusion and reality.

[Cunt]

I understand these attacks on q, but the assertions aren't like that.

It's mostly asking leading questions, and they have often been interesting ones. Like the hints and leaks that have always coming from government.

Anyway, sticking on the first point (rather than how much of it is bullshit) if you contend that the insider is delusional, can you give a reason for Trump to tweet coordinated confirmations of q's authenticity?

Dismissing it as delusional is easy, but it dodges the question of where it is coming from.

I think that one piece is very significant. The recent coverage by the NY Times sounded fair enough (to most), but random twitterers are already finding oddments.

the Times...
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1226641222925791233

In its intelligence bulletin identifying QAnon as a potential domestic terror threat, the FBI warned that social media was serving as an incubator for groundless theories and inspiring followers to take action.

https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status ... 5163901955

I received a reply from the FBI on my FOIA request. They could not confirm the so-called "FBI intelligence bulletin" about conspiracies.

They also referred me to the bureau's public bulletin on categorization of terror threats which does not mention conspiracies as a threat.

So if the NYTimes was being honest, no need for you to worry, right?

What if they lied or were misled? Is that 'no worries'?

I'm not as confident dismissing it as 'not coordinated with Trump'. To me, since it seems to come from there, it is important, relevant information about the US political scene. Might be MISinformation, or DISinformation, but not irrelevant.