Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by jaded View Post
    October 8th, 2019
    BOMBSHELL: Whistleblower ‘Had A Significant’ Tie To Democrat Challenging Trump In 2020 Election, Report Says
    By Ryan Saavedra
    DailyWire.com


    https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombs...source=twitter

    A new report from The Washington Examiner on Tuesday revealed that the CIA whistleblower reportedly “had a significant” connection to a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate who is challenging President Donald Trump in the election.

    “In an Aug. 26 letter, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, wrote that the anonymous whistleblower who set off the Trump-Ukraine impeachment fight showed ‘some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate,'” The Examiner’s Byron York wrote. “Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday’s impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower’s possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat,” York continued. “It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year’s election.”

    One person with knowledge of what was said told York, “The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates.”

    A second person with knowledge of Atkinson’s testimony said, “The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates.”

    A third person said, “What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.”

    The Examiner notes that all three sources indicated that Atkinson did not reveal the identity of the Democrat presidential candidate.

    In late September, the Trump administration told Fox News that the CIA whistleblower “who leveled an explosive accusation against President Trump concerning his talks with Ukraine had ‘political bias’ in favor of ‘a rival candidate’ of the president.”

    At the start of October, CNN reported that the “possible political bias” mentioned in “the Intelligence Community Inspector General report refers to the fact that the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Donald Trump’s interactions with the Ukrainian President is a registered Democrat.”

    “Further although the ICIG’s preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible’ particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review,” Atkinson wrote.

    Democrats have sought to make as much of their push to impeach the president as secretive as possible, with The Washington Post reporting yesterday that Democrats want to have the whistleblower testify in front of them at a secret location, without their GOP colleagues present, and want to prevent Republicans from learning the whistleblower’s identity.

    “House Democrats are weighing extraordinary steps to secure testimony from a whistleblower whose complaint prompted their impeachment inquiry, masking his identity to prevent President Trump’s congressional allies from exposing the individual, according to three officials familiar with the deliberations,” The Post reported. “The steps under consideration include having the whistleblower testify from a remote location and obscuring the individual’s appearance and voice, these officials said.”
    I posted this earlier and no one cared. I hope now it gets traction.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by man down View Post
      OMG Im done! Now its "oh that" Man you are something!

      How is it that no other states do this? Why cant CA with all its tax money maintain the forest? They wont allow the cutting of trees so this kind of chit happens. I hope you enjoy your cold shower, oh wait, water might not work. Schools closing, tunnels closed. This is costing some big bucks.

      Your Governor seemed a ok with it.
      https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...218803990.html
      No, you're not.

      You know he's lied and you see he will never, ever come off a talking point, yet you keep gumming up threads playing his pointless and oh so predictable game.

      He's programmed, and nothing you say can change that. He's the epitome of an NPC.

      Why you keep beating your head against that intellectual brick wall is beyond me.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 1bad65 View Post
        No, you're not.

        You know he's lied and you see he will never, ever come off a talking point, yet you keep gumming up threads playing his pointless and oh so predictable game.

        He's programmed, and nothing you say can change that. He's the epitome of an NPC.

        Why you keep beating your head against that intellectual brick wall is beyond me.
        Truth, sometimes you think you can see a light. Turns out its just a CA wildfire.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Vlad_ View Post
          Nice. Tell the Dems to fuck right off.


          https://apnews.com/22b5861e55084f39b7c7cf92cbbf3333
          Nice

          Clear obstruction

          Suggest you read up on what brought Nixon down

          Comment


          • Originally posted by man down View Post
            I posted this earlier and no one cared. I hope now it gets traction.
            I probably should follow the previous posts more carefully before posting...but this thread can be painful to read sometimes and I don't always bother.

            Comment


            • Donald Trump Promised to Eliminate the Deficit in 8 Years. So Far, He Has Increased it by 68%

              By Shane Croucher On 10/8/19 at 7:38 AM EDT
              During the 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump made an aggressive promise on federal finances: He would eliminate the budget deficit within eight years. Now, three years into his presidency, the deficit is 68 percent higher than when he started.

              Trump inherited a deficit of $585 billion when he took office in January 2017. That was 58 percent lower than the $1.4 trillion former President Barack Obama inherited in 2009 following the financial crisis, a number his administration slashed over two terms.

              According to the latest Congressional Budget Office data released on Monday, the full-year deficit for 2019 is estimated to come in at $984 billion, just shy of the $1 trillion that many analysts were expecting. In 2018 the figure was $779 billion and in 2017 it was $665 billion.

              "Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit—at an estimated 4.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—was the highest since 2012, and 2019 was the fourth consecutive year in which the deficit increased as a percentage of GDP," the CBO said in its report.

              "He's got no hope of eliminating the deficit," Danny Blanchflower, professor of economics at Dartmouth College and a former monetary policymaker at the Bank of England, told Newsweek. "The only possibility is for him to increase the deficit...This looks much like the policy on Syria: Uncoordinated chaos."

              During the last election, Trump said he could clear America's $19 trillion of gross federal debt within eight years. To do that would mean eliminating the federal deficit, the negative difference between income and expenditure which keeps adding to the debt pile. It is now $22 trillion.

              "We're not a rich country. We're a debtor nation...We've got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt," Trump told The Washington Post in April 2016, several months before the election he would win. "I think I could do it fairly quickly...I would say over a period of eight years," Trump added, and suggested he would do so by renegotiating trade deals and creating trade surpluses.

              Yet, since taking office, Trump's trade negotiations have provided little fruit for the economy and are instead hurting the pockets of American companies and consumers that are absorbing the financial burden of the tariffs.

              After scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Trump administration agreed a new deal with Canada and Mexico called the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), but it is yet to be ratified by Congress. Negotiations with China are ongoing as mutual tariffs impact hundreds of billions of dollars in goods trading between the two.

              And talks also continue with the European Union as a similar tit-for-tat tariff war, a conflict opened by the Trump administration last year, rumbles on with no end in sight. It was initially over steel and aluminum imports but has now expanded to a range of products.

              These trade wars are hurting America's manufacturing sector and weakening the domestic economy. But they are also clipping global growth, which is feeding back to further dampen U.S. GDP. There is talk among economists of a possible recession coming down the line.

              Another major deficit issue is the Trump administration's $1 trillion package of tax cuts, which mostly benefited those with higher wealth and incomes, passed at the end of 2017. These tax cuts, the administration argued, would pay for themselves over time by fueling economic growth.

              But the Trump administration's spending continues to significantly outpace its receipts, widening the deficit and adding more money to the federal debt pile despite the president's claim that he could clear it.

              "I think the reality was that this was ideology over economics," Blanchflower told Newsweek. "I've always argued you needed stimulus, but the time they did it was wrong, how they did it was wrong, and surprise surprise this is what you get.

              "A trillion-dollar deficit at the point at which the U.S. economy is clearly slowing and may well be entering recession as the rest of the world is."

              The White House and the Office for Budget Management did not respond immediately to Newsweek's request for comment.


              https://www.newsweek.com/trump-defic..._medium=Social

              Comment


              • Originally posted by travestyny View Post
                LOL. You give them answers, and they will just pretend they can't read.
                Like that time you challenged me to a bet and I embarrassed you so badly you had to block me from your thread?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joel Osteen View Post
                  Like that time you challenged me to a bet and I embarrassed you so badly you had to block me from your thread?
                  Ahem






                  Your troll skills are severely lacking

                  Comment


                  • This is getting good. Anyone have popcorn?

                    SCHIFF-PELOSI CAUGHT IN UKRAINIAN ARMS SCANDAL: Giuliani Confirms TGP’s Prior Exclusive – Schiff and Pelosi’s Ukrainian Donor Was Given Lucrative Defense Contracts!

                    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...nse-contracts/

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by man down View Post
                      This is getting good. Anyone have popcorn?

                      SCHIFF-PELOSI CAUGHT IN UKRAINIAN ARMS SCANDAL: Giuliani Confirms TGP’s Prior Exclusive – Schiff and Pelosi’s Ukrainian Donor Was Given Lucrative Defense Contracts!

                      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...nse-contracts/
                      Nice...LOL

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP