What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Thats your opinion. 1st off, no such event has been proven. 2nd, you are now drawing a distinction between domestc and foreign.

But ok, lets play that little game. What are you thoughts and Guiliani working for Trump trying to leverage information from foreign politicans? Or Trump trying to trade off information on Biden with military aid? Is that ok?

You can say that, but all the evidence says it wasn't. Again, why do you think Trump made the call. in the first place? Remembering that he was in the midst of a campaign to discredit Biden win, he was actively looking for fraud, he was ignoring all the evidence even from his own handpicked DOJ head.

And even on the call he had no evidence, just theories he read of 'Trump media'.

He had a pandemic to deal with, millions unemployed, a rental crisis, economy on its backside, the changeover to Biden, planning for Afghan withdrawal, failing infrastructure. And yet he took time out to make a call to simply talk to this guy?

You can't honestly think that he simply had a chat, put the phone down and simply moved on with a 'hey I guess it was all legal' shrug.

Well he must be cooperating sufficiently because the committee are likely going to vote to hold Jeffery Clark in contempt due to the committee feeling he’s not being forthcoming enough.

Snopes is biased to the Left. They have lied in their reporting, which is the same as misrepresenting the facts. I said 'and a whole host of others.' So you are quoting one of they type of sources I intended.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/29/the-unreliable-facts-of-a-fact-checking-site/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3--r1uTA9AIVFAaICR1pawJYEAMYASAAEgIyRvD_BwE

That must be why Trump and the DoJ charged him while Trump was in charge. Oh wait...............

Yeh, but it's OK when Trump does it. 😉

You can't reason with cultists.

Just like when Bill Clinton's name gets mentioned by the pilot (assuming it does, apparently he did). Legal as feck!

He was just doing long-term planning for his 2016 run and needed Jeffrey to provide him a youthful feminine audience to refine his platform was all. Nothing to see here.

My take - absolutely take him off air

Waiting on notobtuse to come along and say "it was just a conversation between two guys"

Panto season already?

Yep. Read the article this morning and initially thought "That's a bit harsh" but then when he attempted to use his influence to change the narative, then no. Had to be stopped.

And as for the pilot, let's not forget he apparently gave trump and clinton lifts. I mean, let's not go down the obtuse path of mangling reports.

Oh no it isn't

Couldn't resist.

But isn't that at the heart of the issue of what happens next with Trump? His loyalists and to a lesser extent Republicans have their own alternative facts/truths which are contrary to reality. You can't reason with that. I know we all like to think we could change people's minds with facts and good solid arguments but that assumes the other person is going to accept some basic rules like reality. Trump accelerated the disintegration of political life in the US and some elements of social media, mainstream media and alternative media have helped too. Literally anything could happen as our barometers of the past don't factor in the influence of the new accelerant that is social media. If you accept any old random string of thoughts put together by some randomer as your new gospel then how can you predict what happens next?

And, yeah, it actually makes debate impossible. Real debate is about being open to new ideas if persuasive arguments have been presented. Trump cronies continue to rehash the same proven lies that emerged even months before the election. If they are going to make up terms like "fake News" (Bundling their lies in with information THEY deem trivial) and "alternative facts" (lies), then I will: Pre-lies. These are lies they propagated out even before the election to cast doubt because they had done the numbers and knew they were out.

Now, I use the term "lie" a lot. But I only use this when something has been PROVEN to be a lie. (Much of trump's call previously). I will refer to other claims as claims if they have not been already proven to be lies. If a claim was made, and proven to be wrong and acknowledged by trump (few) then I would refer to them as claims. But then these claims would not be brought up again. However if a claim is made, PROVEN to be wrong (intentionally or unintentionally) and CONTINUES to be used then I call this a lie. I only bring this up to clarify why I use the term lie a lot instead of misinformation/claim etc. It is important to highlight the difference between disputed/unverified info and proven lie.

Anyway, yeah, back on track. Yes, this is the problem. Debate implies being open to new ideas/opinions if persuasive arguments can be presented. Debate is pointless here as trump cronies have provided no arguments that have not been debunked repeatedly by many different sources. Often from within their own party. EVERY argument they make about rigged election, for example, has been PROVEN categorically to be a lie. As said, many times even from their own party. And trump cronies will not accept this proof as fact. No matter how much evidence is presented.

So, as others have said, it really it a panto: Yes it is/oh no it's not/oh yes it is.

Still, it is enjoyable to vent, right? 😀