When will Trump be impeached? -2019 Better late than never- Congratulations!

It's a really minor role? Not sure.

Aurata speaks of media bias but sources Russia Today to prove his points.

Its not about which messenger bears the news.

Its about the evidence itself.


If someone is interviewed by both CNN and RT and says the same thing each time, does that mean they were wrong when RT broadcast it?

Aurata speaks of media bias but sources Russia Today to prove his points.

Its not about which messenger bears the news.

Its about the evidence itself.


If someone is interviewed by both CNN and RT and says the same thing each time, does that mean they were wrong when RT broadcast it?

If Kellyanne Conway gave an interview to both CNN and RT saying that Trump is bigger than Jesus then, yes, she would still be nuts.

If Sean Spicer reiterated Trump's claim to both CNN and RT that he [Trump] has accomplished more in his first 100 days than any previous President then, yes, he would still be nuts.

It's a really minor role? Not sure.

I didn't say minor, I said advisory.

Besides wasn't Hillary being First Lady part of her "qualifications". Wasn't in Nepotism when New York cleared out the Senate vacancy and any competition for her?

Not that I think this is nepotism. I think its putting someone in place to give advice, not to run an agency. For goodness sakes, if Trump thinks Ivanka is one of the best people in the U.S. to give him advice, let her give him advice.

Thanks for posting the full episode. I usually have to torrent or get an abridged version.

Aurata speaks of media bias but sources Russia Today to prove his points.

Its not about which messenger bears the news.

Its about the evidence itself.


If someone is interviewed by both CNN and RT and says the same thing each time, does that mean they were wrong when RT broadcast it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQkXv08uL5c

MSM is Fox News. MSM is NPR. MSM is a lot of (different) things which can be defined a lot of different ways.

You always wuss out. Trust in mass media is at an all time low, by far most Americans do NOT trust it, and that Gallop poll was done before the election. Heck even my liberal friends now mostly admit it is lies, the Trump thing woke people up that MSM is basically North Korea propaganda, with a bigger budget.

And yet you always post on here quoting MSM as "proof". WTF dude? You are way out there in radical-leftist fantasy land. Corporate propaganda is not proof of anything.

MSM is Fox News. MSM is NPR. MSM is a lot of (different) things which can be defined a lot of different ways.

You always wuss out. Trust in mass media is at an all time low, by far most Americans do NOT trust it, and that Gallop poll was done before the election. Heck even my liberal friends now mostly admit it is lies, the Trump thing woke people up that MSM is basically North Korea propaganda, with a bigger budget.

And yet you always post on here quoting MSM as "proof". WTF dude? You are way out there in radical-leftist fantasy land. Corporate propaganda is not proof of anything.

I am going to have to agree with Ptolemy on this. MSN/CNN/Fox/NBC et all have an agenda and report on their news accordingly. Look at the stories they blatantly ignore while the hours wasted on trivial BS.

I'll post this again, but it is just as relevant now:
https://www.thenation.com/article/venezuelas-media-coup/ 

As long as Trump plays nice with the real leaders, he is safe from any legal recourse. Much to the chagrin of this guy.

For those that are into polls, Nate Cohn is considered among the “gold” standard for analyzing data, and the NYT article linked below is his.  Interesting read….  And, IMHO, in order to keep his “reputation” intack, he knows he has to report the actual data, but he also seems to use a lot of “legalese” sounding language in the article to try and not upset his political “compadres”…..

As long as Clinton and other Democrats stay in denial about why they loss to Trump, they will have a difficult time winning the presidency in 2020.

Some excerpts.  See the link for the complete article.

A 2016 Review: There’s Reason to Be Skeptical of a Comey Effect

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn MAY 8, 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/upshot/a-2016-review-theres-reason-to-be-skeptical-of-a-comey-effect.html?_r=0

On Friday, Oct. 28, James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, sent a letter to Congress about new evidence in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Politicians, analysts and journalists are still debating whether the letter cost Mrs. Clinton the presidency. It’s certainly possible. But I am not at all sure,……….

Most important, the polls taken before the letter were as bad for Mrs. Clinton as those conducted after it. Again, there aren’t many of these polls, but taken at face value there’s a case that Mrs. Clinton had nearly or even completely bottomed out by the time the Comey letter was released. Even if she had not, the trend line heading into the Comey letter was bad enough that there’s no need to assume that the Comey letter was necessary for any additional erosion in her lead…….

In retrospect, there is virtually no evidence to support the view that Mrs. Clinton really had a six-point lead by Oct. 28, even if it was a very reasonable interpretation of the polls that had been released to that point. She didn’t have a six-point lead in any of the 16 (sometimes low-quality) national surveys that went into the field on or after Oct. 23 and were completed before the Comey letter, including her steadily shrinking lead in the ABC/Washington Post tracker.  A new report from the American Association of Public Opinion Research on 2016 polling reached a similar conclusion……

This doesn’t mean that Mr. Comey didn’t or couldn’t have played a pivotal role. The fairly sparse polling makes it hard to be sure of just how much Mrs. Clinton’s standing fell before the Comey letter. Maybe our Florida poll was a dud after all. Mr. Trump won the state by only a point, although many of the trends evident in our poll — like lower black turnout, a less-than-record-setting showing by Mrs. Clinton among Hispanic voters, and Mr. Trump’s surge among Republican and white working-class voters — held true on election night.

It’s hard to rule out the possibility that Mr. Comey was decisive in such a close election. Mr. Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than a percentage point. Even if there were no evidence to support a shift after Mr. Comey’s letter, there would still be reason to wonder whether his actions were decisive. The story dominated the news for much of the week before the election. One could imagine how Mr. Comey’s letter might have swayed voters who remained undecided heading into Election Day.

But in such a close election, anything and everything could have plausibly been decisive.

                   

For those dreaming/wishing/praying/fantasizing for impeachment, today may be the defining moment.  President Trump on a TV interview with Lester Holt of NBC “news” - NBC is not exactly a Trump friendly “news” organization – Trump said the following:

"There's no collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians," Trump said in an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-collusion-lester-holt-interview-nbc-news-2017-5           

Remember Bill Clinton saying on TV that he never had sexual relations………The Republicans used Clinton’s statement against him for the impeachment process. 

Therefore, if Trump is as “dumb” as many of you think, when all the documentation of the Trump campaign colluding with the “Russians” comes out, there will be grounds for impeachment. 

Of course this means that Trump knowingly made this “false” statement being fully aware that he did collude with the “Russians.”   

I would think that Susan Rice must be running to the telephone to call the Senate and accept their request for her to testify about the “Russian” investigation, as she was involved in it.  Today, she could document the collusion and then the Democrats could really start screaming for impeachment. Or, the people loyal to Comey will start leaking collusion documentation to get back at Trump for firing Comey.  Or, maybe the Russians will leak it to throw the U.S. into a political crisis.  Of course this all assumes that such collusion took place. 

The "objective" Washington Post already assumes that Trump just lied (I’m shocked) as they are saying “No good lawyer would have let Trump give Lester Holt this interview….”   

Of course if no such collusion evidence is produced I fully expect the Washington Post and the other elitists to apologize (lol)….

No good lawyer would have let Trump give Lester Holt this interview

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/11/no-good-lawyer-would-have-let-trump-give-lester-holt-this-interview/?utm_term=.6902058ee30c

President Trump’s interview with Lester Holt was so politically and legally problematic, one must assume no one with a year of law school under his belt would have recommended Trump do it. As The Post summarizes…
                 

Trump wasn't under oath when he was interviewing Lester Holt.

As far as legal stuff, he can simply say that that was his belief at the time, given the information he had. If it comes out someone did have a connection, he can simply say he was unaware they did.

Trump wasn't under oath when he was interviewing Lester Holt.

As far as legal stuff, he can simply say that that was his belief at the time, given the information he had. If it comes out someone did have a connection, he can simply say he was unaware they did.

Politically, I don’t think that’s the position that the Democrats and the elitist media would take……

Trump wasn't under oath when he was interviewing Lester Holt.

As far as legal stuff, he can simply say that that was his belief at the time, given the information he had. If it comes out someone did have a connection, he can simply say he was unaware they did.

Politically, I don’t think that’s the position that the Democrats and the elitist media would take……

Politically, if it was Obama or a Hillary Clinton saying those same things then I think they [Republicans] would have convened at least a 10th congressional investigation by now - in the hope that someone can fabricate that smoking gun that's not there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_C5W8jUK5E

Trump wasn't under oath when he was interviewing Lester Holt.

As far as legal stuff, he can simply say that that was his belief at the time, given the information he had. If it comes out someone did have a connection, he can simply say he was unaware they did.

Politically, I don’t think that’s the position that the Democrats and the elitist media would take……

Politically, if it was Obama or a Hillary Clinton saying those same things then I think they [Republicans] would have convened at least a 10th congressional investigation by now - in the hope that someone can fabricate that smoking gun that's not there.

Reminder that this is the end result of the GOP response to Islamic terrorists choosing of their own volition to attack a US embassy on the other side of the planet:

WASHINGTON — Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.

But the lack of any clear finding of professional misconduct or dereliction of duty was certain to fuel further criticism of the length of the investigation — more than two years — and the expense, estimated at more than $7 million.

Imagine what these craven toolboxes would have done if Obama or Hillary lied about literally everything and obstructed every investigation into anything, the way Trump does. Trump even literally lied about the amount of rainfall on his inauguration.

Donald Trump claims he invented 'priming the pump' phrase
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/11/donald-trump-claims-invented-priming-pump-phrase/
"I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good," Mr Trump told "The Economist" magazine in an interview published on Thursday.

Please stop twisting his words, Life Support. Getting tired of your endless spin to make Trump look like a moron. Everyone knows he *meant* that he was the first to use the phrase as a sexual metaphor.

He was responding to an inquiry about his plan for tax cuts (the bulk of which would go to the upper 1%):

It’s OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?

It is OK, because it won’t increase it for long.

Donald Trump claims he invented 'priming the pump' phrase
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/11/donald-trump-claims-invented-priming-pump-phrase/
"I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good," Mr Trump told "The Economist" magazine in an interview published on Thursday.

Please stop twisting his words, Life Support. Getting tired of your endless spin to make Trump look like a moron. Everyone knows he *meant* that he was the first to use the phrase as a sexual metaphor.

heh

Of course "they" will try hard to impeach him, or kill him. He is against the new world order. Have you ever listened to "JFK's Secret Society Speech" that got him killed? Recommended.

https://youtu.be/wISEOOsEvI8

He was responding to an inquiry about his plan for tax cuts (the bulk of which would go to the upper 1%):

Still, not exactly an impeachable offense. In fact, as much as I despise the guy, this talk of impeachment may be pure fantasy. Not that a smoking gun couldn't eventually turn up -- and the FBI will continue investigating the Russia issue -- but as long as the Republicans are at the wheel, barring a complete abandonment of Trump by his base, nothing is likely to come of it. And as much damage as he's doing to the country and the office he holds, I shudder to think what impeachment proceedings might do to the tenuous order that's holding the US together right now. It seems to me the best we could hope for is to contain him for the next two years (his ineptitude almost does that on its own), weaken him and his party in the mid-terms, and vanquish him in the next election.