Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Options
1…184185187189190…323

Comments

  • Options
    #5582
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,051 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    The investigation was likely to always be the **** show that it seems to have been. Which plays ok in Trump's minds because it reflects badly on the FBI too which is an organization he spends a lot of time denigrating.

    The important thing here is how obvious a sham it has been and what the likes of Flake, Collins, Manchin etc do with the public knowledge of that.

    Will they show any integrity? I'd give long odds on that personally, public opinion must be brought to bear heavily on them to have any chance surely.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #5583
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,499 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    If there is a big thumbs down, i’m not seeing it in the CNBC link, which says only that the dairy deal deoesn’t provide a huge a boost to US dairy trade as might have been implied, (but apparently it is still bigger than it would have been under TPP,see link below) So, at best, for the dairy deal, it’s a small thumbs up, not a big thumbs down. For example, it does not address the matter of the increase of automobile production requirement in the US, or an increase in the minimum wage in the production of automobiles in all three countries to a figure which reduces the attractiveness of transferring work over the border. If that is a thumb up o thumb down, your link does not say.

    Besides, if HuffPo is to be believed, these are agreements which Obama did most of the negotiation for. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-obama-trade-deal_us_5bb292b9e4b00fe9f4f99ec7
    So, either the current deal is better than people are giving credit for, or it was just a lousy situation all around and that was about all anyone was going to get.

    As for Trump mocking Ford, he’s an asshole, simple enough. I don’t think even Rigolo would object to that.

    You are shifting the goalposts there Manic. People are judging this deal against the rhetoric of the POTUS himself, that the pervious deal was the worst thing ever, a sell out of the US, that he would prefer a trade war than to continue on, that he would deliver a deal that would deliver jobs and MAGA.

    The new deal seems awfully close to the previous deal. There are a few adjustments, and they are to be welcomed. But when you (Trump) continually bigs everything up as the greatest ever, then it is not unreasonable to ask what exactly have changed and was it worth all the diplomatic capital that has been used up.

    So it is on the values that Trump talked about that it is being judged. And by that measure it is a flop. Not a flop in overall terms, but a flop compared to what he promised.

    Canada and Mexico are not going to simply forget how they were treated. Trump was very condescending to both countries and in particular to Canada's leader. The US isn't the only country that feels pride for itself.


  • Options
    #5584
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    StringerBell wrote: »
    The investigation was likely to always be the **** show that it seems to have been. Which plays ok in Trump's minds because it reflects badly on the FBI too which is an organization he spends a lot of time denigrating.

    The important thing here is how obvious a sham it has been and what the likes of Flake, Collins, Manchin etc do with the public knowledge of that.

    Will they show any integrity? I'd give long odds on that personally, public opinion must be brought to bear heavily on them to have any chance surely.

    I believe that Murkowski has said that she's getting more heat on this from her constituents than they did over the Healthcare vote, so maybe those still looking for votes might be a bit more shaky?

    Flake is an outlier though. He shouldn't feel the same pressure to fall into line, but he does generally seem fairly spineless about these things, despite his bluster when talking about Trump


  • Options
    #5585
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,078 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    1 point about the investigation, and 1 about Kavanaugh.

    First, there were murmurs that the investigation would have to be proper, because if the Dems take control of the judiciary committee post mid-terms, they will scrutinise every document and find out if there were corners cut.

    About Kavanaugh, I did not see all of his opening 45 salvo of defence. I was aware of the conspiracy theory that the Clintons were behind it all, but I only heard for the first time this morning the "what goes around, comes around" comment. Wow! Not only should be disqualified on that statement alone, but he should also recuse himself from any current case before him as a Circuit Judge involving strong ties to Democrats.


  • Options
    #5586
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    So the FBI report will be available to senators around 1pm our time tomorrow. Doesn't look like it's going to be public, and it seems they're being very strict on who sees it, so looks like it won't be leaked either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5587
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,235 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Pelvis wrote: »
    So the FBI report will be available to senators around 1pm our time tomorrow. Doesn't look like it's going to be public, and it seems they're being very strict on who sees it, so looks like it won't be leaked either.
    As soon as it hits the Senate, it will be everywhere. :)


    The ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top as Sir Humphrey Appleby was wont to say.


  • Options
    #5588
    SimonTemplar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    Pelvis wrote: »
    So the FBI report will be available to senators around 1pm our time tomorrow. Doesn't look like it's going to be public, and it seems they're being very strict on who sees it, so looks like it won't be leaked either.

    If all 50 senators get a copy, it'll almost certainly get leaked, possibly by Booker.


  • Options
    #5589
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    As soon as it hits the Senate, it will be everywhere. :)
    SimonTemplar wrote: »
    If all 50 senators get a copy, it'll almost certainly get leaked, possibly by Booker.

    It doesn't look like they're getting a copy. They will have "access" to it and will take turns on an hourly basis.

    So sounds like they're gonna have a few copies in a room, a group of senators will have an hour to read, then another group comes in etc etc.

    Apparently it will be illegal for them to talk about the contents of it publicly. This is all according to reports on Anderson Cooper last night.


  • Options
    #5590
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    The question is often raised if Russia's interference swung the Presidency for Trump.

    This is the most definitive analysis yet.
    • Russia stole the DNC electoral files and used it to target weak Clinton voters in the key swing states and push them to stay at home or vote independent/Green. Clinton lost the 3 key States by a combined 80,000 votes where 660,000 voted independent.
    • Knowing Clinton could win big in the debates Russia used tactically timed leaks of the hacked emails. The idea was to paint Clinton as duplitious/two faced. In fact this was so succesful it made debate questions 'Should a candidate be two faced?' even though the quotes were taken out of context and the fact that a hostile foreign power was behind the leaks was not mentioned. The debates provided the unusual result of stronger performces by Clinton resulting in more people believing her 'two faces' resulting in poorer debate results.
    • Comey was manipulated by Russia to issue an unprecedented press release on the closing of the Clinton email probe (first time) where he cleared Clinton and also bizarrely admonished her. ('Lock her Up!'). This allowed the reopening of the investigation to knock Clintons lead from 6.5% to 1.5%.
    • The day the Russia story was released to the press was also the day that 'access holywood' was released. Half an hour later there was a big dump of the emails that allowed the media to paint one candidate as bad as the other. With the 'pussy grabbing' etc what should have been a massive story (Russia) died.
    • Imagine the interference was reversed: Trump's laundry was publicly aired: the Trump tower meetings with Kremlin officials to collude, Tax returns, debts exposed, money laundering cases and allegations, affairs, payments to hide affairs, etc etc. What would have been the margin of Clinton's victory?
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump?mbid=social_twitter
    Nonetheless, Comey has reportedly told aides that he let the disinformation shape his decision to sideline Lynch. Fearing, in part, that conservatives would create a furor if the alleged e-mails became public, he began to feel that Lynch “could not credibly participate in announcing a declination.” A subsequent report, by the Justice Department’s inspector general, described Comey’s behavior as “extraordinary and insubordinate,” and found his justifications unpersuasive.

    Nick Merrill, a former Clinton-campaign spokesman, describes Comey’s actions as “mind-blowing.” He said of the intelligence impugning Lynch, “It was a Russian forgery. But Comey based major decisions in the Justice Department on Russian disinformation because of the optics of it! The Russians targeted the F.B.I., hoping they’d act on it, and then he went ahead and did so.”

    In the fake Russian intelligence, one of the Clinton-campaign officials accused of conspiring with Lynch was Amanda Renteria. She was shocked to learn of the allegations, and told me that, although she is friendly with a woman named Loretta Lynch—a political figure in California—she does not know the Loretta Lynch who was the Attorney General.


  • Options
    #5591
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    Pelvis wrote: »
    So the FBI report will be available to senators around 1pm our time tomorrow. Doesn't look like it's going to be public, and it seems they're being very strict on who sees it, so looks like it won't be leaked either.
    Totally forgot the podcasts I'm listening to are from yesterday, so in fact the FBI report will be available TODAY.

    An interesting day ahead so...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5592
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Man I completely forgot about Mueller

    Special counsel's office has radio interviews between Roger Stone and alleged WikiLeaks 'back channel'

    He's still going strong anyway.


  • Options
    #5593
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,078 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Man I completely forgot about Mueller

    Special counsel's office has radio interviews between Roger Stone and alleged WikiLeaks 'back channel'

    He's still going strong anyway.

    Yep! And oul Paulie was in talking to him earlier in the week.

    If the tax returns from the 70s through 90s were explosive, can you imagine what the more recent ones will be.. (the ones Trump won't release to the public)


  • Options
    #5594
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Pelvis wrote: »
    It doesn't look like they're getting a copy. They will have "access" to it and will take turns on an hourly basis.

    So sounds like they're gonna have a few copies in a room, a group of senators will have an hour to read, then another group comes in etc etc.

    Apparently it will be illegal for them to talk about the contents of it publicly. This is all according to reports on Anderson Cooper last night.


    So no copies and no talking about it whatsover?


    What's to stop them writing 'F*CK YOU' on a piece of paper and saying 'there's your FBI report'?


  • Options
    #5595
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,139 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Sorry to be so ignorant of the background to this, but the Kavanaugh business appeared apparently out of nowhere and became the only issue in this Supreme Court appointment.

    There was a list of nominees, what happened to the rest of them? How did they get to it being only Kavanaugh as an option. Was this a direct result of Trump's selection, is that always the case? If (unlikely as it seems) K is rejected do they go back to the list? How will the next person be selected?

    Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Ford case, the whole thing seems to be utterly corrupt, even to the FBI 'investigation' - will the public ever get to know what they investigated, much less what they discovered? Can the WH dictate what the FBI investigates?

    Its a horribly compelling soap opera, but maybe they - the country - should just be left to get on with it, let them go through the Taliban phase that so many of them seem to want, and eventually come out of it of their own volition. That there seems to be around the 50% mark in favour of the current situation is alarming/disgusting.

    As an aside, I know two people - one American in Ireland and one Irish recently left America - and both say that one of the things that influenced them to leave was the disdain of the general populace for any evidence of intelligence or education in a person. Both were in relatively 'blue' areas of the States and both were in academic environments/jobs, but still they felt it. Maybe it is something the US has to grow out of, or maybe it is a sign of the way things could go in Europe too.


  • Options
    #5596
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Yep! And oul Paulie was in talking to him earlier in the week.

    If the tax returns from the 70s through 90s were explosive, can you imagine what the more recent ones will be.. (the ones Trump won't release to the public)

    SHS was challenged on this at the press conference too. She was asked why there was no plan to make public any older tax returns earlier than the scope of what could be under audit, and her answer was that there are no plans to release any of his returns.

    It all just lends further credence to the NYT article. If there wasn't so much noise, I would think that this would be getting a lot more coverage.

    They are claiming that the NYT article is defamatory & a lie. Trump is a big fan of litigation. If the claims were false, why wouldn't he, or the Trump family sue for defamation? Is it because, if they were to sue, they'd have to open their books up to prove that the article wasn't true?


  • Options
    #5597
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    looksee wrote: »
    There was a list of nominees, what happened to the rest of them? How did they get to it being only Kavanaugh as an option. Was this a direct result of Trump's selection, is that always the case? If (unlikely as it seems) K is rejected do they go back to the list? How will the next person be selected?

    Yes, Trump is given a shortlist and he picks one. If that pick is rejected he'll just pick another from the list, and the process starts again with the background check and judicial hearings.

    As far as I know the Federalist Society created the shortlist of 25 judges to choose from, and they are on record as saying they would be happy with any single one of those.


  • Options
    #5598
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,312 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    looksee wrote: »
    Sorry to be so ignorant of the background to this, but the Kavanaugh business appeared apparently out of nowhere and became the only issue in this Supreme Court appointment.

    There was a list of nominees, what happened to the rest of them? How did they get to it being only Kavanaugh as an option. Was this a direct result of Trump's selection, is that always the case? If (unlikely as it seems) K is rejected do they go back to the list? How will the next person be selected?

    Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Ford case, the whole thing seems to be utterly corrupt, even to the FBI 'investigation' - will the public ever get to know what they investigated, much less what they discovered? Can the WH dictate what the FBI investigates?

    There are groups (I think the main one is the Federalist Society) who would submit a list of appropriate candidates to the White House. The WH can then interview or research those and basically the President is the one who nominates a particular candidate for the role. From there, it's then up to the Senate Committee to hold a hearing to question/confirm them (as is the case with most of the major roles in Government such as Attorney General). The Senate Committee then vote on whether to nominate them, and if yes, it goes to the full Senate (not Committee) for a vote to confirm them to the position. That's my understanding of it anyway, not sure if the House of Representatives get a say in it either.

    So Kavanaugh was nominated for the position by Trump. Unless the WH decide to rescind his nomination or he doesn't get voted through the nomination process, Kavanaugh remains the lead for the position. If he fails, someone else from the shortlist will be put forward by Trump/WH and the process starts again.

    Even if the Dems somehow take both the Senate and the House after the midterms, the nomination will still come from Trump.

    As for the FBI investigation, I think the WH set the scope of the investigation, and the FBI operate within that scope. The scope and specifics of the findings will likely not be made public. I'm sure the Dem Senators will be able to comment on certain aspects of it (eg. what wasn't done as part of the investigation, why wasn't Person A interviewed?), but might not be able to give details on specifics (eg. what Person B said in their testimony).


  • Options
    #5599
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    looksee wrote: »
    Sorry to be so ignorant of the background to this, but the Kavanaugh business appeared apparently out of nowhere and became the only issue in this Supreme Court appointment.

    There was a list of nominees, what happened to the rest of them? How did they get to it being only Kavanaugh as an option. Was this a direct result of Trump's selection, is that always the case? If (unlikely as it seems) K is rejected do they go back to the list? How will the next person be selected?

    Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Ford case, the whole thing seems to be utterly corrupt, even to the FBI 'investigation' - will the public ever get to know what they investigated, much less what they discovered? Can the WH dictate what the FBI investigates?

    Its a horribly compelling soap opera, but maybe they - the country - should just be left to get on with it, let them go through the Taliban phase that so many of them seem to want, and eventually come out of it of their own volition. That there seems to be around the 50% mark in favour of the current situation is alarming/disgusting.

    As an aside, I know two people - one American in Ireland and one Irish recently left America - and both say that one of the things that influenced them to leave was the disdain of the general populace for any evidence of intelligence or education in a person. Both were in relatively 'blue' areas of the States and both were in academic environments/jobs, but still they felt it. Maybe it is something the US has to grow out of, or maybe it is a sign of the way things could go in Europe too.


    The Federalist Society gave a list of 25 judges for Trump to nominate. They were explicit in saying they had no favourite, even saying you could throw a dart at the list to pick a judge and they'd be happy with who it hit.


    So the nomination is completely down to Trump and appears to have been urged by the retiring judge Kennedy. There are a number of theories as to why but nothing solid.


  • Options
    #5600
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,312 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    spacecoyote wrote: »
    They are claiming that the NYT article is defamatory & a lie. Trump is a big fan of litigation. If the claims were false, why wouldn't he, or the Trump family sue for defamation? Is it because, if they were to sue, they'd have to open their books up to prove that the article wasn't true?

    Didn't work out so well with Stormy Daniels. I'd say they'll just scream "FAKE NEWS" "MEDIA ATTACKING ME" etc and ignore it.

    As has been said on far too many other days of Trump's presidency, news like that would normally sink a President, but it's only like the 4th most negative story about him that day and will be forgotten about in a week.


  • Options
    #5601
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,139 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    spacecoyote wrote: »
    SHS was challenged on this at the press conference too. She was asked why there was no plan to make public any older tax returns earlier than the scope of what could be under audit, and her answer was that there are no plans to release any of his returns.

    It all just lends further credence to the NYT article. If there wasn't so much noise, I would think that this would be getting a lot more coverage.

    They are claiming that the NYT article is defamatory & a lie. Trump is a big fan of litigation. If the claims were false, why wouldn't he, or the Trump family sue for defamation? Is it because, if they were to sue, they'd have to open their books up to prove that the article wasn't true?

    Which is not quite the same as 'they are being audited'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5602
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,078 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    The NYT was warned before the published the article that they would be sued by one of his many lawyers (although, there is one less now).

    The NYT went ahead and published it.


  • Options
    #5603
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,020 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    looksee wrote: »
    Sorry to be so ignorant of the background to this, but the Kavanaugh business appeared apparently out of nowhere and became the only issue in this Supreme Court appointment.

    There was a list of nominees, what happened to the rest of them? How did they get to it being only Kavanaugh as an option. Was this a direct result of Trump's selection, is that always the case? If (unlikely as it seems) K is rejected do they go back to the list? How will the next person be selected?

    Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Ford case, the whole thing seems to be utterly corrupt, even to the FBI 'investigation' - will the public ever get to know what they investigated, much less what they discovered? Can the WH dictate what the FBI investigates?

    Its a horribly compelling soap opera, but maybe they - the country - should just be left to get on with it, let them go through the Taliban phase that so many of them seem to want, and eventually come out of it of their own volition. That there seems to be around the 50% mark in favour of the current situation is alarming/disgusting.

    As an aside, I know two people - one American in Ireland and one Irish recently left America - and both say that one of the things that influenced them to leave was the disdain of the general populace for any evidence of intelligence or education in a person. Both were in relatively 'blue' areas of the States and both were in academic environments/jobs, but still they felt it. Maybe it is something the US has to grow out of, or maybe it is a sign of the way things could go in Europe too.

    As the guys have said the society drew up a list of 20 or so names so Trump picking any would have kept them and the republican base happy.

    Trump interviewed 4 I think for 40 or so minutes. Hardiman a relatively centre right guy who has a working class background which Trump loves but as before he did not get the pick. One of those guys who may be destined foe second place. Then he interviewed Barrett who Sasse was clearly referring to, she is what the base wanted, a devout young Catholic mum who in a dream world would help take apart Roe v Wade. Supposedly Trump just did not click whatsoever with her so she was goosed. The last was Amul Thapar who Mc Connell loves and that did not work out, again Trump did not click with him allegedly.

    There was an article from Axios from a Republican friendly writer that said it was Kav or bust, a lot at of the reaction from the left was

    "LOL you expect us to believe there is no plan b from Mc Connell"

    Probably the GOP trying to put the fear into the wavers.

    I think best case scenario for the GOP would be Kav losing and then they go with Barrett. The base wants the vote so he can't be pulled and while initially there would be anger losing , Barrett would be the perfect back up, as the Dems absolutely loath her and were targeting it harder than anyone once it emerged she was a contender. The Christian right who are propping up the GOP would go bananas also for her.

    I refuse to believe Mc Connell the shrewd ruthless guy that he is has not thought of such a scenario although obviously he has to say Kav is a cert to be confirmed and try to strong arm the doubters to keep the base pleased.


  • Options
    #5604
    Rhineshark
    Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Rhineshark


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    The Federalist Society gave a list of 25 judges for Trump to nominate. They were explicit in saying they had no favourite, even saying you could throw a dart at the list to pick a judge and they'd be happy with who it hit.


    So the nomination is completely down to Trump and appears to have been urged by the retiring judge Kennedy. There are a number of theories as to why but nothing solid.

    Very important point to note here - Brett Kavanaugh was *not on this list*. He was added by Trump after talk with retiring Kennedy, a GOP appointee who was often a swing vote. Another interesting titbit is that McConnell didmt want him and reckoned he'd be hard to get through.

    Note: Kavanaugh is generally anti RvW and also has made comments about how a sitting president shouldn't be indictable.


  • Options
    #5605
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,078 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Just as an aside, Kavanaugh's name was not on the original list.

    Kavanaugh's name was only added to the list after the Special Counsel was appointed.

    Kavanaugh had previously opined that a sitting President should not and could not be indicted.

    Make of that what you will.


  • Options
    #5606
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,312 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    everlast75 wrote: »
    The NYT was warned before the published the article that they would be sued by one of his many lawyers (although, there is one less now).

    The NYT went ahead and published it.

    Yeah I've seen people commenting that for the NYT to have gone to the level of explicitly saying what they've said in their article, rather than implying or suggesting, they likely have a lot of substantial evidence behind it, and that they checked numerous times with their own lawyers if they had enough basis to say certain things.


  • Options
    #5607
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Penn wrote: »
    There are groups (I think the main one is the Federalist Society) who would submit a list of appropriate candidates to the White House.

    The Federalist Society has no special rights here. The President chooses someone. Remember that GWB chose the massively unqualified Harriet Myers at one point, and had to retract the name due to the laughing in the Senate (and the ABA).

    He could take a name from the KKK for all it matters. Or Antifa. Federalist Society was once upon a time a respectable organization focused on the Constitution. Trump's lazy, found an organization to do this work, doesn't particularly care as long as his name is up in lights. Hence, the outsourcing to the Federalist Society.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/09/who-are-federalist-society-inside-right-wing-group-picking-trump-s


  • Options
    #5608
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,168 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Penn wrote: »
    Yeah I've seen people commenting that for the NYT to have gone to the level of explicitly saying what they've said in their article, rather than implying or suggesting, they likely have a lot of substantial evidence behind it, and that they checked numerous times with their own lawyers if they had enough basis to say certain things.

    Interesting to note that DJT never claimed that the NYT article was Fake, just 'Bad'

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1047469711938736128


  • Options
    #5609
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,499 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Interesting to note that DJT never claimed that the NYT article was Fake, just 'Bad'

    There are been no denial of the substance of the article, the most was his lawyers said it contained inaccuracies. That could mean that a date was wrong, or they used a wrong address for example.

    From following Trump, it is clear that this is fundamentally true, but also true is the fact that he is pretty confident that the vast majority of people don't care.


  • Options
    #5610
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,139 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Possibly even Trump has realised that 'fake' when used by him is likely to be interpreted as 'there must be something in it'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5611
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,078 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    You will see from the below that the WH position already is that the FBI report provides nothing in terms of why he should not be nominated. Whether the (incomplete in my opinion) report says so or not remains to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1047804151743356929


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement