Trump's Second and Third year in office

Pepsi should respond by tweeting out that video of when Donald was giving that speech at the WH and slurring really bad and it seemed like his dentures were about to fall out. No editing needed.

Quote: lilredrooster

Trump tweeted a bogus, doctored vid of Nancy Pelosi making her look like she is suffering from dementia or is drunk
side by side with the actual vid shows the fake - Trump tweeting fake news

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/us/politics/pelosi-doctored-video.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

From what I understand there are 2 Pelosi videos.

The doctored video making Pelosi look drunk was tweeted by guiliani and then halfheartedly retracted. It made a lot of rounds on the internet but Trump did NOT retweet that one.

A second video was EDITED (as opposed to doctored) which showed pelosi acting weird by moshing clips together as if she was giving a single speech (I have not seen this one so not commenting on how bad or truthful that appears) and this is the one Trump retweeted.

Lets not give the head exploding righties on here any reason to shout fake news. When the left does its usually in error. When the right does its usually purposefully but they cant tell the difference

Let's get rid of these insidious Chinese restaurants and replace them with good old American dishes like pizza.

Quote: billryan

Let's get rid of these insidious Chinese restaurants and replace them with good old American dishes like pizza.

"French" toast.

The horror, the horror.

Freedom Fries. That's the way to go.

Quote: RS

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131728912835383300

This one's real though and it's absolutely fantastic. PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE

What's with the sudden hate for the way Pelosi supposedly speaks?

Trump supporters have been perfectly fine and accepting of his nonsensical ramblings for the last 2 1/2 years; I would have thought Pelosi's stammerings wouldn't even be on their radar...

Quote: TigerWu

What's with the sudden hate for the way Pelosi supposedly speaks?

Trump supporters have been perfectly fine and accepting of his nonsensical ramblings for the last 2 1/2 years; I would have thought Pelosi's stammerings wouldn't even be on their radar...

Small people mock those they fear. If they have to doctor videos and spread them as "truth", it's a small thing, no worries about ethics they don't have in the first place.

Quote: TigerWu

What's with the sudden hate for the way Pelosi supposedly speaks?

Trump supporters have been perfectly fine and accepting of his nonsensical ramblings for the last 2 1/2 years; I would have thought Pelosi's stammerings wouldn't even be on their radar...

I’d rather government leaders not be drunk all the time and slurring their words like Pelosi.

Quote: RS

I’d rather government leaders not be drunk all the time and slurring their words like Pelosi.

Id rather people werent liars condoning fake videos

Quote: RS

I’d rather government leaders not be drunk all the time and slurring their words like Pelosi.

Who says she's drunk all the time?

Quote: TigerWu

Who says she's drunk all the time?

Add a video of her sh@@@@g in the streets and she's the perfect resident of San Fran.

Quote: Boz

Add a video of her sh@@@@g in the streets and she's the perfect resident of San Fran.

Uhh... wouldn't that logic apply to a video of ANYONE s***ting in the streets?

Or do you know people that could get away with publicly defecating in a street and look totally normal?

Quote: TigerWu

Uhh... wouldn't that logic apply to a video of ANYONE s***ting in the streets?

Or do you know people that could get away with publicly defecating in a street and look totally normal?

So you are judging the good residents of San Fran who do this on a daily basis? Of course it is normal at Ground Zero of Liberalism.

https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-human-poop-problem-2019-4

And here is a map if you need help on where to NOT step.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2019/04/15/mapping-san-franciscos-human-waste-challenge-132562-case-reports-since-2008/#431b10e25ea5

Quote: Boz

So you are judging the good residents of San Fran who do this on a daily basis?

Um... Yes? Pooping in a public street is not normal.

Quote:

Of course it is normal at Ground Zero of Liberalism.

https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-human-poop-problem-2019-4

What does liberalism have to do with a large homeless population pooping in the streets?

Quote: TigerWu

Uhh... wouldn't that logic apply to a video of ANYONE s***ting in the streets?

Or do you know people that could get away with publicly defecating in a street and look totally normal?

Im certain trump could get away with publicly defecating in the street with trump supporters

Quote: darkoz

Im certain trump could get away with publicly defecating in the street with trump supporters

Oh, yeah, totally... they wouldn't care. They would somehow see it as an "alpha move."

in addition to being scumbags for putting out the bogus video these clowns are really effing 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐏𝐈𝐃

𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲'𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲'𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐭?

like they're tech geniuses and nobody can figure out what they're doing

sure they are. my 12 year old niece knows more about computers than they do

Quote: lilredrooster

in addition to being scumbags for putting out the bogus video these clowns are really effing 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐏𝐈𝐃

𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲'𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲'𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐭?

"...you can fool some of the people all of the time..."

That's the target audience for videos like that. And it works, because that audience is incredibly ignorant.

I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard Mueller’s voice.

If Mueller does nothing else, hopefully he won't come out with an ambiguous statement.

Mueller in a nutshell:

Read the report, people! The President is not innocent, just not charged. And I don’t want to testify in front of Congress. Peace out!

"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Heck, he even made the point that there was insufficient evidence to charge collusion with Russians, which is nowhere near Trump's "complete exoneration".

Mueller's statement:

Thank you for being here. Two years ago the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel, and he created the special counsel's office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I'm speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel's office, and, as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers, who were part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization, WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood, and that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. And in a second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. And we conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.

The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially, it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated, and from them we concluded that we would, would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office's, that is the office's final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations. The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The attorney general preferred to make that, preferred to make the entire report public all at once, and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general's good faith in that decision.

Now I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office. So beyond what I have said here today, and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it's for that reason I will not be taking questions today as well. Now before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel's office were of the highest integrity. and I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our of our indictments that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

Listening to Mueller, he came across as a whiny ass bi%$# who was upset that his cabal of Trump hating biased leftie lawyers could not make a case to indict the President.

Quote: Fleaswatter

Listening to Mueller, he came across as a whiny ass bi%$# who was upset that his cabal of Trump hating biased leftie lawyers could not make a case to indict the President.

That's only because you would rather listen to lies and spins than what the report actually says. He reiterated acurately what the report said, and confirmed exactly what has been said all along - the DOJ rules prevented him from charging Trump with obstruction.

Quote: Fleaswatter

Listening to Mueller, he came across as a whiny ass bi%$# who was upset that his cabal of Trump hating biased leftie lawyers could not make a case to indict the President.

Robert Mueller is an honorable man with a distinguished military career...a vietnam vet and a purple heart recipient, a REPUBLICAN highly respected on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Donald Trump is a lying piece of s**t who's pulling the biggest con in the history of our country...and you're in on it.

Quote: Fleaswatter

Listening to Mueller, he came across as a whiny ass bi%$# who was upset that his cabal of Trump hating biased leftie lawyers could not make a case to indict the President.

LOL... What statement were you listening to? The Mueller Report clearly made a case against Trump. Mueller cited DOJ policy as to why they didn't indict him. He was practically begging Congress to begin impeachment proceedings in this morning's statement.

Mueller Gets in a Final, Despicable Smear

Quote: Fleaswatter

Mueller Gets in a Final, Despicable Smear

Another headline from your "source":

Watch Grand Maw Fruit Loops 'Pelosi' Talk Gibberish at a Washington Post Event.

Not even going to bother clicking this joke of a news site.

Quote: Fleaswatter

Listening to Mueller, he came across as a whiny ass bi%$# who was upset that his cabal of Trump hating biased leftie lawyers could not make a case to indict the President.

Really, that was Mueller? Some nervous
shakey voiced old man who sounds like
he retired 10 years ago?

Quote: EvenBob

Really, that was Mueller? Some nervous
shakey voiced old man who sounds like
he retired 10 years ago?

Not surprised that you didn't address the content of his speech.

Quote: TigerWu

Mueller's statement:

I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it's for that reason I will not be taking questions today as well.

Translation: We tried to get em, we tried our
best, but, goddamit, we found nothing. So
move along, nothing to see here..

Quote: EvenBob

Really, that was Mueller? Some nervous
shakey voiced old man who sounds like
he retired 10 years ago?

The guy read Trump related crap 10 hours a day for 2 years. He oughta get disability pay.

Quote: EvenBob

Translation: We tried to get em, we tried our
best, but, goddamit, we found nothing. So
move along, nothing to see here..

LOL.... He literally said the exact opposite. The Mueller Report literally says the exact opposite.

You guys are living in a fantasy world.

Quote: rsactuary

"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Here is your quote and the follow on sentence:
" And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime."

The Special Counsel, in completing his investigation, spent $35 million, employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff, issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

So with all the effort the Special Counsel and his team expended, Mueller could not determine whether or not the president committed a crime.

Quote: Fleaswatter

So with all the effort the Special Counsel and his team expended, Mueller could not determine whether or not the president committed a crime.

That's what I said. Mueller was giving
the 'Move along, nothing more to see
here speech."

Quote: EvenBob

That's what I said. Mueller was giving
the 'Move along, nothing more to see
here speech."

No. He was calling on Congress to do their job.

Our righties are trying extra hard today to pretend water isn't wet. Very enjoyable to watch.

Quote: Fleaswatter

Here is your quote and the follow on sentence:
" And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime."

The Special Counsel, in completing his investigation, spent $35 million, employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff, issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

So with all the effort the Special Counsel and his team expended, Mueller could not determine whether or not the president committed a crime.

Now who's trying to use excerpts to prove the opposite of what was said? That would be you.

He said charges against the President "were not an option" because of DOJ guidelines. They knew that from the start. The significance of it is, they did NOT have the authority to charge the President with crimes. "Only Congress" can do that, Constitutionally. So, not making a determination, but also not exonerating him, means that they DID have sufficient evidence, but were not allowed to indict.

Quote: EvenBob

That's what I said. Mueller was giving
the 'Move along, nothing more to see
here speech."

Can you imagine how much worse the far left fringe on here is going to get when he wins re-election next year?

Quote: Steverinos

No. He was calling on Congress to do their job.

...and I say go ahead and do it. Stop fooling around and open the proceedings. That will give you the leverage to force more testimony.

Quote: RonC

...and i say go ahead and do it. Stop fooling around and open the proceedings. That will give you the leverage to force more testimony.

I agree, go for it. Mueller threw up
his hands today and basically said,
we all know he did something, we
just can't find any evidence. So I'm
giving up, I'm old and exhausted.
Y'all have to carry on with the
witch hunt without me, just keep
investigating and something will
turn up.

Pathetic.

Quote: EvenBob

I agree, go for it. Mueller threw up
his hands today and basically said,
we all know he did something, we
just can't find any evidence. So I'm
giving up, I'm old and exhausted.

Isn't Mueller only like 4 years older than you?

Quote: ams288

Isn't Mueller only like 4 years older than you?

Some people age better than others...

Quote: RonC

Some people age better than others...

Mueller will be 75 in 6 weeks, looks
and sounds 80. Squeaky old nervous
voice. If I was the Dems I'd be saying,
this sorry old ass is who you put in
charge of getting rid of Trump?
Really?

Quote: EvenBob

I agree, go for it. Mueller threw up
his hands today and basically said,
we all know he did something, we
just can't find any evidence. So I'm
giving up, I'm old and exhausted.
Y'all have to carry on with the
witch hunt without me, just keep
investigating and something will
turn up.

Pathetic.

The few times you're right about something I get worried. Fortunately, today is not that day.

Quote: rxwine

The few times you're right about something

Few times? I've been saying for a
year and a half that there was no
'there' there, and I was right. I've
been saying for a year and a half
there was a secret coup and it
would all come to light eventually,
and boy was I right on that.

You on the other hand, have been
totally WRONG on everything.

So what does Mueller do today? He comes out and says (paraphrased), “There ain’t anything beyond what’s in this report. What’s in the report is it. There’s nothing. You bring me up to talk; I can’t tell you anything other than what’s in the report.” Mueller shut them down.

Rush

Quote: EvenBob

Few times? I've been saying for a
year and a half that there was no
'there' there, and I was right. I've
been saying for a year and a half
there was a secret coup and it
would all come to light eventually,
and boy was I right on that.

You on the other hand, have been
totally WRONG on everything.

Are you Shawn Hammity Jammity what's his face?

I think maybe, so go back to your TV show where you're appreciated.