Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rother-of-president-donald-trump-dies-aged-71

Anyone else thinking that maybe covid got him and it's being supressed for political reasons ?
Click to expand...

Or maybe old age, there are 100's of reasons why people die over the age of 70.

Even if he got Covid, was it years of eating cream pies, or fatty foods, or lack of exercise, or agenetic disposition to heart disease, or maybe cancer from overexposure to chemicals, or simply his body could not take one more hit, maybe to many hits of whiskey.
 
image(1).png
 
IFocus said:
You cannot make this stuff up

US Senate report goes beyond Mueller to lay bare Trump campaign's Russia links
Bipartisan intelligence panel says that Russian who worked on Trump’s 2016 bid was career spy, amid a stunning range of contacts


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/18/donald-trump-us-senate-report-russia-campaign
Click to expand...
You can absolutely make this stuff up because that's what was done. Democrats, media, and dumbstruck banded together to create the biggest hoax that subsequently fell apart the more you picked at it.

Good movie coming out though. Guy who directed it is a right anarchist (hates government). Smart guy.

 
That is it, that is all you have.

So lets just diagnose your statement, a stack of people who side with the beliefs of the Democrats are all corrupt because of a conspiracy.

The world is f--kd.
 
moXJO said:
You can absolutely make this stuff up because that's what was done. Democrats, media, and dumbstruck banded together to create the biggest hoax that subsequently fell apart the more you picked at it.

Good movie coming out though. Guy who directed it is a right anarchist (hates government). Smart guy.

Click to expand...


Nope that enquiry was bipartisan and the findings damming.
 
macca said:
And China is laughing at all of us
Click to expand...

How brilliant was the plan?

It is extraordinary, so well implemented, my hat is off to the CCP.

So simple, ingenious, brilliant and 95% effective than any other weapon/method to undermine and destroy democracy.

Not even the Don, could have been so effective in creating divisiveness in a functioning society that for all parts is far for all those that contribute.
 
IFocus said:
Nope that enquiry was bipartisan and the findings damming.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There were Republicans and Democrats on the enquiry.

What I haven't heard was whether there were any dissenting voices on the outcome. Do you know if it split along party lines or were the Republicans in agreement with the decision. The latter would be a big blow to Trump.
 
bellenuit said:
Absolutely. There were Republicans and Democrats on the enquiry.

What I haven't heard was whether there were any dissenting voices on the outcome. Do you know if it split along party lines or were the Republicans in agreement with the decision. The latter would be a big blow to Trump.
Click to expand...

The Committee was lead by a Republican and gave a unanimous finding.

Republican-Led Review Backs Intelligence Findings on Russian Interference
A new Senate report undercuts claims by President Trump and his allies that Obama-era officials sought to undermine him while investigating Russia’s 2016 election meddling.

WASHINGTON — For years, President Trump has derided the assessment by American intelligence officials that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to assist his candidacy, dismissing it without evidence as the work of a “deep state” out to undermine his victory.

But on Tuesday, a long-awaited Senate review led by members of Mr. Trump’s own party effectively undercut those allegations. A three-year review by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously found that the intelligence community assessment, pinning blame on Russia and outlining its goals to undercut American democracy, was fundamentally sound and untainted by politics.

“The I.C.A. reflects strong tradecraft, sound analytical reasoning and proper justification of disagreement in the one analytical line where it occurred,” said Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina and the panel’s chairman. “The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusions.”

The endorsement by Mr. Burr’s committee comes at a key moment for the intelligence agencies. Not only has Mr. Trump moved in recent months to install a loyalist in the top spy position, but Attorney General William P. Barr has also blessed a broad review of possible misconduct by investigators examining the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, apparently including work by intelligence officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/russian-interference-senate-intelligence-report.html

Russian election interference, John H. Durham, is examining whether the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies overstated President Vladimir V. Putin’s support of the Trump campaign, a central finding of the 2017 assessment. His team has interviewed intelligence analysts, questioning whether Obama-era intelligence officials hid evidence or manipulated analysis about Moscow’s covert operation, people familiar with the Durham inquiry have said.
 
so we are ignoring the fact the fbi lied with all the evidence that has come out.
 
One of the most glaringly bogus Trump-Russia stories by The New York Times in 2017 was picked apart inside the FBI at the time as containing over a dozen major inaccuracies, a newly disclosed document shows.

Declassified by the Justice Department, the document contains the Times story that reported there were extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. The document also contains a typewritten critique in the margins by FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who totally rejected the Times’ claim.

“Again, we are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials,” Mr. Strzok wrote.

Since fired by the bureau, Mr. Strzok then led the Crossfire Hurricane unit investigating the Trump campaign.

On Feb. 14, 2017, at the height of conspiracy theories about President Trump and the Kremlin, The New York Times published a three-byline sensation: “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence,” the headline proclaimed.
The first paragraph read, “Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.”


The story stood as proof of Trump-Russia collusion except it was flatly wrong. There were no such year’s worth of intercepts or phone records.

Then-FBI Director James B. Comey read the story and quickly, and privately, alerted congressional leaders about the falsity. In June 2017, after being fired by Mr. Trump and testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee, Mr. Comey told the world the story was false.


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, released the Strzok document on Friday.

The Times story was a one-two punch at the White House. It came a month after BuzzFeed published the notorious Democratic-funded dossier widely accepted by the press, which erroneously said Mr. Trump was in a far-reaching election conspiracy with Moscow and included numerous salacious details.

“The comments of Peter Strzok regarding the February 14 New York Times article are devastating in that they are an admission that there was no reliable evidence that anyone from the Trump Campaign was working with Russian Intelligence Agencies in any form,” Mr. Graham said.

The senator added, “The statements by Mr. Strzok question the entire premise of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump Campaign and make it even more outrageous that the Mueller team continued this investigation for almost two and a half years. Moreover, the statements by Strzok raise troubling questions as to whether the FBI was impermissibly unmasking and analyzing intelligence gathered on U.S. persons.”

Appointed in May 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller filed a report in March 2019 that said his team found no Trump-Russia election conspiracy.

Mr. Strzok, who was fired for his anti-Trump texts, wrote 15 Times story comments, including:

On the lead paragraph, “This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with IOs [intelligence officers].”

On the second paragraph, which said U.S. intelligence began collecting Trump-Russia intercepts in the spring, “We do not know nor can we figure out what this means or where it might be coming from (i.e. something we can identify as a source of misunderstanding.)”

On the paragraph that said former campaign manager Paul Manafort was picked up on calls to Russian intelligence, “We are unaware of any calls with any Russian government official in which Manafort was a party.”

On the story saying FBI has banking records, “We do not yet have detailed banking records.”

On they story saying in subsequent paragraphs there were lots of contacts, “Again, we are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”

On The New York Times assertion that the National Security Agency intercepted Russian-Trump aides calls, “If they did we are not aware of those communications.”

Mr. Comey checked with NSA after he read the story and was told there were no such intercepts.

On the story’s assertions that Trump adviser Roger Stone was under investigation at the time, “We have not investigated Roger Stone.”

On the story’s assertion that Christopher Steele, creator of the anti-Trump dossier, was reliable, “Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his sub-source network.”

By then, the FBI had interviewed Mr. Steele’s main source, who said he fed Kremlin gossip to the British ex-spy and had no idea he was writing a report.

But that’s not the end of the story of the FBI’s skepticism.

According to then-White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe approached him and volunteered to the president’s top aide that the just-published New York Times story was bunk.

Mr. Priebus asked if he could say that publicly. Later, the FBI told him he could not. The next thing Mr. Priebus knew, CNN was reporting he some how intervened with the FBI to get it to say something that was false. This never happened, he said. He always wondered if the bureau set him up.
 
Hard to copy and past that article for some reason. Anyway the NY times was caught out lying before. This is the mob that pushed out the conservatives and have since devolved into muckraking.
 
Bas article above is about Russian Interference. Not collusion. Let's make that very clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Garpal Gumnut
US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
7 8 9
Replies
171
Views
10K
divs4ever
divs4ever
Garpal Gumnut
President Trump 2020-2024: Economic Implications
2 3
Replies
49
Views
6K
divs4ever
divs4ever
bigdog
Why Donald Trump's Companies Went Bankrupt
Replies
3
Views
2K
noirua
noirua
basilio
The White House is sinking into a den of iniquity
Replies
3
Views
2K
Tisme
Tisme
basilio
Will smartphones be the end of us?
Replies
10
Views
3K
crackajack2
C
Top