We need to talk about Donald: cursing and swearing allowed

[Forty Two]

I have read the evidence and resultant official charges but I genuinely can't see where Trump is implicated in any of it.

Yes, the alleged perpetrators were associates of his, but I can't see how their alleged crimes have anything to do with the Trump-Russia affair.

They don't. It's Mueller's attempt to squeeze Manafort to turn and give them something to pin on Trump.

It's exactly what critics were saying 6 months ago - that Mueller's investigation would just cast a wide fishing net, and bring in all sorts of garbage that has nothing to do with the actual reason for him being placed as a special prosecutor to begin with. Now we're going to here all about Manafort's tax evasion and money laundering in 2014 and 2015, none of which Trump was privy to. And it's all couched as "conspiracy against the United States" to give a nice headline to the media.

[Forty Two]

c'mon, are you thick or just trolling?
no, don't answer, not even seth could be so thick

What do you think the charges show, vis-a-vis Trump? Please cite to the indictment to show your work.

[Forty Two]

Trump may well have said to trusted aides during the campaign "use any dirty tricks you can find to do the dirt on Hillary, just don't tell me how you got the info". With a scenario like that, it may well be that formal legal evidence of Trump's involvement will not be available, but it is pretty clear that his whole campaign was irrevocably tainted by dirty deals with foreign powers pursuing their own national interests. He is morally culpable, if not legally so...

Morally culpable in what? Money laundering by Manafort in 2014? Manafort's failure to disclose his agency to a foreign government?

What dirty deals?

[Tero]

You are tooting the conservative mantra

'This is a nothing burger': How conservative media reacted to the Mueller indictments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... dictments/


What dirty deals? All of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian ... _elections
In exchange for pee pee tapes

[Tero]

Still, he didn’t change his tune. During a September 8 interview with RT, the Kremlin-controlled broadcaster that has been accused of disseminating fake news and propaganda, Trump discounted the Russian connection: “I think maybe the Democrats are putting that out. Who knows, but I think it’s pretty unlikely.” (Yes, he did this on RT.) He repeated a similar line at the first presidential debate at the end of that month, with his famous reference to how the DNC hacker “could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?”


Private experts and US intelligence had already determined that Russia had pulled off this caper. Trump had been told this. Yet he continued to deny Russia’s culpability, actively protecting Moscow.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... al-guilty/

[Sean Hayden]

I think Russia should give up Trump.

--we can not only pick your President, we can also remove him from office

[Animavore]

[Brian Peacock]

Clinton is not president.

If she was, would you think the allegations merited investigation?

Fuck yeah.

[Brian Peacock]

I think Russia should give up Trump.

--we can not only pick your President, we can also remove him from office

A few drops of wee on a mattress would be all that's needed.

[Tero]

Best cooperation ever. Victim (Trump) wants credit for crook threatening democracy!
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ ... nse-244361

[Tero]

Poll: Most say this is lowest point they can remember for US
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/358160 ... us-history
59%

[Scot Dutchy]

Plenty of stress there.

[Tero]

No staff or cabinets needed. Just a couple of generals (quizzed about the Civil War in interview) and a note taker. Allof Trump’s policy comes off TV:

Political stance

The New York Times wrote that Fox & Friends "has become a powerful platform for some of the most strident attacks on President Obama."[16] The program has provided a platform for conspiracy theories about Obama's religion and, in May 2012, aired a 4-minute video attacking Obama's record as President.[16] The video was widely criticized as a political attack ad masquerading as journalism,[19][20] TIME television critic James Poniewozik wrote: "It's hard to imagine a more over-the-top parody of Fox raw-meat-hurling, fear-stoking, base-pleasing agitprop."[21]

In response, a Fox News exec vice-president 'disavowed' the video, blaming an associate producer and that the video 'slipped by' senior managers at the network.[22] Fox stated that the show was entertainment and "does not pretend to be straight news."[16] Citing anonymous sources, the New York Times reported that some reporters, producers and executives at Fox were 'embarrassed' by the show, which remains by far the highest-rated cable show in its time slot as of June 2012.[16]

On October 5, 2013, while covering the government shutdown which had led to the closing of a veteran's museum, presenter Kooiman claimed that President Obama had offered "to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture". The story seemed to have been sourced from a spoof news website National Report, and the following week an on-air apology was made for "reporting a story based on poor research that was not true".[23]

[Animavore]

Scumbaggery at the highest levels.

Citing The Bible, The EPA Just Changed Its Rules For Science Advisers

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday afternoon sweeping changes to who can advise the agency on its research and regulatory priorities, opening the door to more industry participation.

Effective immediately, scientists who receive EPA funding cannot serve on the agency's three major advisory groups. Some Republican lawmakers have been pushing for similar changes to the agency's advisory boards for years.

"We want to ensure that there’s integrity in the process and that the scientists that are advising us are doing so without any type of appearance of conflict of interest," EPA head Scott Pruitt said at a press conference announcing the directive.

Pruitt used a story from the Book of Joshua to help explain the new policy.

On the journey to the promised land, "Joshua says to the people of Israel: choose this day whom you are going to serve," Pruitt said. "This is sort of like the Joshua principle — that as it relates to grants from this agency, you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or chose the grant. But you can’t do both. That’s the fair and great thing to do."

A large coalition of science organizations, science advocates, environmentalists, and politicians lined up in fierce opposition to the policy changes, arguing the rules not only disqualify top environmental and health researchers from advising but also favor scientists paid for by EPA-regulated companies. They also have pointed out that EPA has strict rules in place for disclosing any conflicts of interest.

cont. https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/epa ... tmprv42Yb7

[pErvinalia]

Scumbaggery at the highest levels.

Citing The Bible, The EPA Just Changed Its Rules For Science Advisers

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday afternoon sweeping changes to who can advise the agency on its research and regulatory priorities, opening the door to more industry participation.

Effective immediately, scientists who receive EPA funding cannot serve on the agency's three major advisory groups. Some Republican lawmakers have been pushing for similar changes to the agency's advisory boards for years.

"We want to ensure that there’s integrity in the process and that the scientists that are advising us are doing so without any type of appearance of conflict of interest," EPA head Scott Pruitt said at a press conference announcing the directive.

Pruitt used a story from the Book of Joshua to help explain the new policy.

On the journey to the promised land, "Joshua says to the people of Israel: choose this day whom you are going to serve," Pruitt said. "This is sort of like the Joshua principle — that as it relates to grants from this agency, you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or chose the grant. But you can’t do both. That’s the fair and great thing to do."

A large coalition of science organizations, science advocates, environmentalists, and politicians lined up in fierce opposition to the policy changes, arguing the rules not only disqualify top environmental and health researchers from advising but also favor scientists paid for by EPA-regulated companies. They also have pointed out that EPA has strict rules in place for disclosing any conflicts of interest.

cunt. https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/epa ... tmprv42Yb7