Yo this dude Trump is spazzing out on Twitter about all different shyt
This son of a bytch cannot be impeached soon enough for me.
RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
This son of a bytch cannot be impeached soon enough for me.
KAC: "Hold on, you and I are both lawyers who never practiced law"
CNN CAC: "I practiced law for several years"
I peeped that
She's used that same rhetorical trick before to cast doubt on reporter's statements.
Cuomo was like
Tony D'Amato
It's all about the inches
I agree, but he always jumpin on the conspiracy thing. He'll put out 1 having the Intel community as the villain and Putin the good guy. Then someone's else will make 1 putting Cheeto on blast. Its definitely going to br multiple movies. Like the White House Down shyt.
Actually I prefer Michael Bay
That way he doesn't have to pepper in the racism, sexism, misogyny, and explosions. They're already in the script.
Stone Cold
Superstar
The Times ‘exposé’ on Donald Trump Jr. is a big yawn
By Michael Walsh
July 9, 2017 | 8:58pm | Updated
Modal Trigger
Getty Images
The news was delivered by the New York Times in the breathless tones that might announce a cure for cancer or the discovery of life on Mars:
“President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.”
To which a rational response is … who wouldn’t? And also: So what? A third response is unprintable.
SEE ALSO
Trump Jr. met with Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary: report
Just as the “Russian collusion” fantasy — a resentful smear cooked up in the immediate aftermath of Clinton’s stunning defeat last fall — was finally fading from the fever swamps of the “resistance” and its media mouthpieces, along comes the Times with a pair of journalistic nothingburgers.
They first reported that Trump Jr., along with Paul Manafort (then the campaign manager) and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, met with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer “linked to” the Kremlin, back in June, shortly after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination. The second claimed she’d promised dirt on Clinton and the Democrats in order to entice Trump Jr. and the others.
According to the younger Trump, the Clinton angle was just a ruse: “Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered,” he told the Times.
The real reason, it seems, was that Veselnitskaya wanted to lobby for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, an Obama-era law that allows the US to deny visas to Russians thought guilty of human rights violations. In retaliation, the Russians promptly ended the adoption of Russian orphans by Americans.
And that’s what all the fuss is about? No campaign in its right mind would turn down an offer of information on their opponent. That is what opposition research is all about. You can bet Hillary wouldn’t have hung up on the person who claimed to have dirt on The Donald. After all, the Clinton campaign lobbied the comedian Tom Arnold two days before the election to release potentially embarrassing footage from Trump’s TV show, “The Apprentice.” Arnold declined.
But in the end, the lawyer had nothing, gave nothing, got nothing in return, in a meeting that lasted 20 minutes. This is a scandal?
Having established the smear of “collusion,” the Times must now link every story with the word “Russia” to it in the hopes that the rubes and suckers won’t stop believing that Trump somehow cheated his way into the White House.
Hasn’t the Times learned its lesson from its disastrous Feb. 14 story, also anonymously sourced, about the Trump campaign’s “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence”? In his congressional testimony last month, former FBI Director James Comey said: “In the main, it was not true.”
But then, so are the other “collusion” stories the left is trying to peddle as proof of some sinister plot to subvert democracy. And all because they refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election. As the president might say: Sad!
When "opinion" turn into facts
By Michael Walsh
July 9, 2017 | 8:58pm | Updated
Modal Trigger
Getty Images
The news was delivered by the New York Times in the breathless tones that might announce a cure for cancer or the discovery of life on Mars:
“President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.”
To which a rational response is … who wouldn’t? And also: So what? A third response is unprintable.
SEE ALSO
Trump Jr. met with Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary: report
Just as the “Russian collusion” fantasy — a resentful smear cooked up in the immediate aftermath of Clinton’s stunning defeat last fall — was finally fading from the fever swamps of the “resistance” and its media mouthpieces, along comes the Times with a pair of journalistic nothingburgers.
They first reported that Trump Jr., along with Paul Manafort (then the campaign manager) and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, met with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer “linked to” the Kremlin, back in June, shortly after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination. The second claimed she’d promised dirt on Clinton and the Democrats in order to entice Trump Jr. and the others.
According to the younger Trump, the Clinton angle was just a ruse: “Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered,” he told the Times.
The real reason, it seems, was that Veselnitskaya wanted to lobby for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, an Obama-era law that allows the US to deny visas to Russians thought guilty of human rights violations. In retaliation, the Russians promptly ended the adoption of Russian orphans by Americans.
And that’s what all the fuss is about? No campaign in its right mind would turn down an offer of information on their opponent. That is what opposition research is all about. You can bet Hillary wouldn’t have hung up on the person who claimed to have dirt on The Donald. After all, the Clinton campaign lobbied the comedian Tom Arnold two days before the election to release potentially embarrassing footage from Trump’s TV show, “The Apprentice.” Arnold declined.
But in the end, the lawyer had nothing, gave nothing, got nothing in return, in a meeting that lasted 20 minutes. This is a scandal?
Having established the smear of “collusion,” the Times must now link every story with the word “Russia” to it in the hopes that the rubes and suckers won’t stop believing that Trump somehow cheated his way into the White House.
Hasn’t the Times learned its lesson from its disastrous Feb. 14 story, also anonymously sourced, about the Trump campaign’s “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence”? In his congressional testimony last month, former FBI Director James Comey said: “In the main, it was not true.”
But then, so are the other “collusion” stories the left is trying to peddle as proof of some sinister plot to subvert democracy. And all because they refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election. As the president might say: Sad!
When "opinion" turn into facts
Tony D'Amato
It's all about the inches
YOU CANT TALK ABOUT RUSSIAN ADOPTIONS WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THE MAGNITSKY ACT SANCTIONS!!!!!
US PASSED THE MAGNITSKY ACT
PUTIN BANS ADOPTIONS IN RESPONSE
His story has changed
Dont these people have lawyers.
You fail to see that even if she had nothing damaging on Clinton, it's highly illegal to meet with a foreign agent under the pretext of receiving damaging info on an opponent. The fact that he changed his story on this twice hurts his credibility.
If the woman were an FBI agent looking to sting him, Donny Jr. would be behind bars right now.
If the woman were an FBI agent looking to sting him, Donny Jr. would be behind bars right now.
General Mills
More often than not I tend to take that L.
KACKAC: "Hold on, you and I are both lawyers who never practiced law"
CNN CAC: "I practiced law for several years"
Stone Cold
Superstar
Actually, Donny Jr. admitting in his statement that he met under that pretext--especially considering that he felt it was important enough to bring along Kushner and Manafort to the meeting--is the definition of collusion.
This is collusion. Dead to rights. This idiot is calling "Russian collusion" a "fantasy" while describing the events of Jr. performing an attempt at collusion
This is collusion. Dead to rights. This idiot is calling "Russian collusion" a "fantasy" while describing the events of Jr. performing an attempt at collusion
Foxmulder
Superstar
The New York Post. Negged.
i knew i wasn't the only who caught that blatantly obvious oversight.Actually, Donny Jr. admitting in his statement that he met under that pretext--especially considering that he felt it was important enough to bring along Kushner and Manafort to the meeting--is the definition of collusion.
This is collusion. Dead to rights. This idiot is calling "Russian collusion" a "fantasy" while describing the events of Jr. performing an attempt at collusion
shyt is hilarious how deluded this article is
His fanbase is eating it up, but any reasonable person can see that Trump is tweeting and acting like a guilty man.