Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

DJT says

Feb 25, 2020 4:12AM PST

"they never told me" when it comes to Russian interference in the election. They told Bernie BUT they never told him.

Perhaps because THEY knew YOU didn't want to hear what THEY
had to say?

OR maybe they DID tell you and you're lying?

The guy that only wants to hear certain things....uses the "they never told me defense".

Should he fire the people "that never told him"?

He has no problem firing people that tell him something he doesn't want to hear...It only seems fair that HE should also fire people that DON'T TELL him something HE should hear.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Did you stop to consider
Feb 25, 2020 10:12AM PST

that the 'intelligence' agency (never specified WHICH one) that reported to Schiff's committee did so deliberately in order for Schiff to leak it to the press the DAY BEFORE the Nevada caucus in order to hurt Bernie since the Dems don't WANT him to win and hoped to smear him the same way they tried to smear Trump with that garbage can full of lies before (and stated that the Russians were AGAIN trying to help Trump, as well....knowing FULL WELL that the report ITSELF didn't say anything of the kind)?

Come on, JP...stop doing CNN's work for them and start actually paying attention for a change. Schiff and CNN keep repeating the same crap as last time....Russia and Trump are colluding to win the election....even though MUELLER said Trump and his campaign DIDN'T. How long will the lies keep coming? Right up until the last day of Trump's second term.....and YOU will keep repeating them as usual.

And yet BO can say "I had a two term presidency with NO scandals" and NOBODY on the left calls him on THAT lie....even though ALL of HIS scandals were real and proven.

- Collapse -
What did Clinton and Harding have in common?
Feb 25, 2020 12:19PM PST

Their sex lives were closeted.

- Collapse -
RE:smear Trump with that garbage can full of lies
Feb 25, 2020 12:40PM PST

HE does look like HE has been "smeared"...with what hasn't been determined yet.

No one has to make up lies about DJT....You can't makeup the stuff that comes out of HIS cakehole.

I heard DJT with MY ears and AND saw DJT with MY eyes saw HIS lips moving/gums flapping .

Russia, if you're listening I hope you're able to find "

IF someone asks me real nice....I can probably find THAT statement on a FOX NEWS source, in fact I'm looking at one right now.

Trump characterized his remarks at the time as "sarcastic." Asked about them more recently, then-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters in June that Trump "was joking... we all know."

While the president claims he was joking, it appears federal investigators were taking his remarks seriously. A federal court filing from earlier this year seems to confirm the existence of FBI records pertaining to Trump's July 27 remarks.

The filing was a response to a FOIA request for "any and all records, including investigative records," relating specifically to Trump's July 27 remarks. In response to the request, the FBI suggests "releasing any responsive records (or portions thereof) "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."


JOKING?...What's up with that?

If/when HE doesn't get a second term HE will be appearing on Comedy Central?

DJT?....The Joker?....Of course the Joker and DJT both have lots of "makeup" on their face.

- Collapse -
All that babble and yet
Feb 25, 2020 3:13PM PST

you never disputed my post.....

- Collapse -
RE: you never disputed my post....
Feb 25, 2020 6:18PM PST

You want ME to dispute YOUR post?

THIS post?....Schiff's committee did so deliberately in order for Schiff to leak it to the press the DAY BEFORE the Nevada caucus in order to hurt Bernie since the Dems don't WANT him to win and hoped to smear him the same way they tried to smear Trump with that garbage can full of lies before (and stated that the Russians were AGAIN trying to help Trump, as well..

OK...Here ya' go.

I dispute YOUR post.

YOU just make claims AND call them FACTS,

So I just have to "dispute YOUR post" and it is so...NO need for ME to provide FACTS OR evidence.

You know...Goose....Gander....You must have heard that saying.

BTW Bernie thanks you for your concern....misplaced though it may be.

This is where YOU respond with links to evidence that proves your claims.

I'll be standing by, NOT holding my breath.

- Collapse -
As usual,
Feb 26, 2020 5:33AM PST

You only quoted PART of the entire sentence, and left out the BEGINNING where I asked you if you CONSIDERED the possibility.

IF you're gonna spin, JP, at least do it as accurately as possible. And there are plenty of links of tv commentators asking the same question....go find them and do your own homework. There is NO requirement in Speakeasy that I have to provide them FOR you. There are very few people that can hold their breath voluntarily until they pass out, but I see you aren't willing to try.

- Collapse -
RE: as usual
Feb 26, 2020 6:58AM PST
left out the BEGINNING where I asked you if you CONSIDERED the possibility.

So YOUR post was a bunch of possibilities...
not a bunch of facts?

If I had my druthers (a person's preference in a matter.) I would rather consider facts than possibilities. Especially when the possibilities are endless.

RE:There are very few people that can hold their breath voluntarily until they pass out, but I see you aren't willing to try.

I think there are some that would be willing to help me hold my breath. Devil
- Collapse -
possibilities... not a bunch of facts?
Feb 26, 2020 10:30AM PST

That should have been familiar to you since most of your posts reflect that train of thought...….....

Even the 'intelligence' agency that gave the 'intel' to Schiff came out and reported that the actual report DOESN'T say that Russia is trying to help Trump, but YOU went with Schiff's talking points anyhow. How about if YOU check FACTS for a change?

- Collapse -
RE:but YOU went with Schiff's talking points
Feb 26, 2020 12:08PM PST

Now why would I do that?...

Because YOU posted them as YOUR proof/evidence?

That would be the logical thing to debate...something YOU quoted/ YOUR argument/YOUR post...

I responded to what YOU posted....that's how I roll....

Want me to reply to the 'intelligence' agency that gave the 'intel' to Schiff came out and reported that the actual report DOESN'T say that Russia is trying to help Trump, ?

Provide a link and I'll give it a look over....Like you're gonna provide a link....You DO know how to post a link don't you? I prefer a non FOX NEWS link IF you can get any non-FOX NEWS sites on your server.

Does this report say that the Russians are interfering with the election at all...never mind for any particular individual.

Trump won't say/admit THAT for some reason.

- Collapse -
The actual report
Feb 27, 2020 3:49AM PST

only states that Russia is again putting out disinformation via the internet....it doesn't states anything about Trump OR Bernie, but assumptions by that Intel official were made about both that they were being 'helped' by Russia. Bernie was 'warned'...Trump was told nothing. The head of the Intel dept that advises Trump has stated publicly that he saw the report and didn't see anything that indicates Russia is trying to help Trump.

Unfortunately, the liberal media never gives 'good' news regarding Trump so your demand that I use any link OTHER than Fox so your demand isn't granted. Yahoo DID post the statement made by Trump's intel advisor about this but didn't quote the report itself and basically discredits the advisor's statement (par for the course with Yahoo) as being biased....and included a short statement from Bernie that he told Russia pretty much the same thing BO did....'cut it out'.

- Collapse -
RE:Trump was told nothing. The head of the Intel dept that a
Feb 27, 2020 4:35AM PST
Trump was told nothing. The head of the Intel dept that advises Trump has stated publicly that he saw the report and didn't see anything that indicates Russia is trying to help Trump.

Trump was told nothing?

Trump saw nothing?

Trump knows nothing?

Shultz of Hogan's Heros?..I see nothing, I know nothing...?

The next lie DJT tells won't be the first one...or the last.

AND.....
we're right back to where WE started with MY OP

"they never told me" when it comes to Russian interference in the election. They told Bernie BUT they never told him.

Perhaps because THEY knew YOU didn't want to hear what THEY
had to say?

OR maybe they DID tell you and you're lying?

The guy that only wants to hear certain things....uses the "they never told me defense".

Should he fire the people "that never told him"?

He has no problem firing people that tell him something he doesn't want to hear...It only seems fair that HE should also fire people that DON'T TELL him something HE should hear.


Head of Intel didn't see anything that indicates Russia was trying to help Trump, AND IF HE DID...He wouldn't tell him...BECAUSE he wanted to keep his job.
- Collapse -
RE:MUELLER said Trump and his campaign DIDN'T.
Feb 25, 2020 6:51PM PST

Trump AND his campaign?

AND?.....

TONI be putting qualifiers in her claims to not tell a lie?

How bout just Trump?

Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells Congress

US President Donald Trump's claim that he was "totally exonerated" by special counsel Robert Mueller was rejected by Mr Mueller in a hearing on Wednesday.

The questions focused largely on Mr Mueller's investigation of President Trump and his decision to say he could not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice,

This is the part where you provide a link showing Mueller DID exonerate DJT.

OR you go dark or change subject/divert/deflect.

- Collapse -
Trump was COMPLETELY
Feb 26, 2020 5:42AM PST

exonerated of colluding with Russia to win his election AND his campaign was exonerated as well because NO ONE was indicted or charged with anything even close to that who worked for/with Trump

....Mueller refused to fully exonerate him on obstruction, which was HIS JOB to do so or find him guilty of it. Which was also ridiculous since Trump FULLY cooperated beyond what was required with millions of documents, hundreds of witnesses (many of whom Mueller's team tried to destroy financially and succeeded with some of them) fighting the bullcrap), full access to his administration, etc. Even the HOUSE couldn't find any obstruction to bring towards impeachment or they would have voted to impeach long before the Ukraine crap...and Mueller was totally in the dark on the witness stand in Congress regarding "HIS" report because it became apparent HE didn't write it or even READ it ahead of time.

And yet, here you are, spewing the same lying talking points three years later.....

- Collapse -
RE:because NO ONE was indicted or charged with
Feb 26, 2020 7:19AM PST
because NO ONE was indicted or charged with anything even close to that who worked for/with Trump

YOU claimed that

MUELLER said Trump and his campaign DIDN'T.

I showed Mueller did not make that statement....

YOU rebutted with

because NO ONE was indicted or charged with anything even close to that who worked for/with Trump

That is NOT THE SAME as saying MUELLER said Trump and his campaign DIDN'T.


Now you have another argument......Mueller refused to fully exonerate him on obstruction, which was HIS JOB to do so or find him guilty of it

First you claim Mueller exonerated Trump NOW you claim Mueller refused to fully exonerate Trump. Are you adding another one of your "qualifiers"? "Fully exonerate"?

BTW Mueller does NOT FIND anyone Guilty OR innocent....HE collects evidence and hands it over to the proper authorities. They decide whether to lay charges or not.

PS and then DJT issues a Presidential Pardon

Post was last edited on February 26, 2020 7:33 AM PST

- Collapse -
Not true...
Feb 26, 2020 10:38AM PST

"Mueller does NOT FIND anyone Guilty OR innocent....HE collects evidence and hands it over to the proper authorities." He does have the power via his attorneys ALSO investigating with him to issue indictments and charges. AND he DID state that there was NO evidence that Trump NOR his campaign colluded with Russia......THAT's exoneration, JP.

He refused to COMPLETE his job when it came to finding if Trump obstructed 'justice' and handed it over to the House to determine that part because he had NO spine to admit there was NO obstruction when you/he considered the AMOUNT of cooperation Trump gave and didn't have to issue ANY subpoenas to get documentation or witnesses (compared to Bill Clinton who refused to cooperate in ANY way during his impeachment investigation and forced the House to issue subpoenas for everything). Since the House found NO evidence showing obstruction from Trump, that, in itself, IS exoneration.

- Collapse -
RE:he considered the AMOUNT of cooperation Trump gave and
Feb 26, 2020 12:21PM PST
he considered the AMOUNT of cooperation Trump gave and didn't have to issue ANY subpoenas to get documentation or witnesses


Did Donald Trump ‘fully’ cooperate with Mueller investigation? No


While Mueller declined to reach a legal judgment as to whether the president obstructed justice, Barr and his deputy concluded Trump did not.

But Mueller completed his report without the Trump White House’s full cooperation — and Barr’s claim to the contrary is simply wrong. Not only did Trump refuse an in-person interview and supply written responses that Mueller found "inadequate," but the president also tried on multiple occasions to shut down or curtail the investigation itself
- Collapse -
Your last statement is completely
Feb 27, 2020 4:03AM PST

false and a lie. Politico has been found and proven to be a political left wing hack. Trump did NOT try to shut down or curtail the investigation. Mueller was never fired (completely within his realm legally to do it) and every document and witness they asked for was handed over to them...sometimes on multiple occasions and for many hours, including his own WH attorneys. This wasn't an impeachment hearing investigation, but he still cooperated many times over the amount that Bill C ever did. Bill refused outright to cooperate with ANYTHING until forced to. Nixon fired the special prosecutor looking at him.

Trump, no matter what Politico has to say, which is nothing more than an opinion piece and not factually correct, has the inherent RIGHT to NOT testify, even with a subpoena, as a citizen of the USA. He cannot be forced to in order to make others happy and not complain about 'he didn't cooperate'.....shoving bamboo under his fingernails to make him confess isn't considered to be cooperation in our country, JP.

- Collapse -
RE:since Trump FULLY cooperated
Feb 26, 2020 10:35AM PST

When/IF I use the term "FULLY cooperated"...I am referring to someone that has sat in the witness stand and taken the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

- Collapse -
Boo Hoo....
Feb 26, 2020 10:44AM PST

NOW who's trying to 'clarify' his own statements? Trump, by OUR laws, NEVER has to testify if he doesn't want to. Even if they had subpoenaed him, he could have taken the 'fifth', just like Lerner and others have, and refused to say a word.

You don't like OUR laws, tough...move here, run for office in Congress, and see if you can change OUR Constitution. And when YOU can actually tell the truth and nothing but the truth when you post, I'll MAYBE find you credible.

- Collapse -
RE:NOW who's trying to 'clarify' his own statements?
Feb 26, 2020 1:22PM PST

Not me....I'm telling you what "FULLY cooperated" means in Canadian English

'clarify'?

YOU used 'FULLY cooperated' in YOUR claim.

And I explained what it means in Canadian English.

I know Americans don't like to use U in words such as coloUr....honoUr

BUT I didn't realize there was a difference in 'FULLY cooperated'...perhaps you could explain.

- Collapse -
He FULLY cooperated according
Feb 27, 2020 3:53AM PST

to OUR laws, NOT YOURS......you have to at some point realize, JP, that you are trying to dictate YOUR crap onto US. IF that were to become a real thing, then I guess we could also start chopping off hands of thieves, right? Or throw gays off roofs? Learn OUR laws before you decide outcomes that you desire.

- Collapse -
RE:that you are trying to dictate YOUR crap onto US.
Feb 27, 2020 4:58AM PST

We got subpoenas up here also....AND they don't have to testify in our own defense....But when they do...I call it "FULLY cooperating"

When someone up here HAS to be subpoenaed I don't say they "FULLY cooperated".

Down there is trying to escape considered "FULLY cooperating"?

I think when someone is held in a POW camp it was their duty to try and escape....'FULLY cooperating"?

"Fully Cooperate" means to assist in completing a specified end or purpose.

How is adding more steps to a process assisting?

More steps, such as subpoenas, changing lawyers, having other things to do?

- Collapse -
In OUR country
Feb 26, 2020 10:46AM PST

you are ALWAYS presumed INNOCENT first....it's up to the PROSECUTION to prove otherwise, not the other way around, JP.

- Collapse -
RE:you are ALWAYS presumed INNOCENT first....it's up to the
Feb 26, 2020 11:13AM PST

you are ALWAYS presumed INNOCENT first....it's up to the PROSECUTION to prove otherwise, not the other way around, JP.

Can I tell HILL? or do you want to tell her?

- Collapse -
With a corrupt
Feb 27, 2020 3:28AM PST

FBI and DOJ, at that time, AND a corrupt President, at that time, there was NO way she was ever going to brought to a trial. It would have been nice to have seen if SHE would have testified UNDER OATH, doncha think, since she NEVER did and neither did any of her people. The one who didn't bother to show up, even though he was under subpoena and never faced charges for that, was the IT guy who wiped her server.

- Collapse -
RE:there was NO way she was ever going to brought to a trial
Feb 27, 2020 5:49AM PST
there was NO way she was ever going to brought to a trial.

Since SHE wasn't brought to trial

AND according to YOU

you are ALWAYS presumed INNOCENT first....it's up to the PROSECUTION to prove otherwise, not the other way around, JP.

HILL IS INNOCENT.

I rest my case.