Drumpf Thread (Reborn!)



Again, cant make it any clearer than i have.
Im here. I mean…otherwise youre making stuff up in your head. Hanging out in San Diego actually. So im pretty sure I would know if somethings crazy or not.

But im talking about these investigations…
For re election…i HIGHLY doubt he gets re elected.


Are you triggered?

Yeah, I am sure that investigation will turn something up right after they find Hoffa’s body.


About what?



Well…we will see if it brings him down.
But definitely a big deal!
Trumps known this guy for over a decade…all of these people around trump dealing with litigation and trumps the ONLY innocent person?

People cant be that stupid…


As the stats always show, white people lead the charge in shooting & killing cops. Here’s the latest:


You’re just a racists.

What does this have to do with Drumpf?


Unfortunately for both Stone and Trump, the indictment is a major milestone in the Mueller probe. It poses a substantial legal threat not only to Stone but to the president as well.

Here are six incriminating takeaways that explain why:

  1. The indictment lays out an almost irrefutable case against Stone.

To understand the strength of Mueller’s position, it’s necessary to do something very un-Trumpian and read through the entire 24-page indictment filed against Stone.

The indictment sets forth in meticulous detail the many lies Stone told in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in September 2017.

Stone was called before the committee to discuss his contacts with WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange during the presidential campaign. The committee was especially interested in learning if Stone had attempted to get advance notice from Assange about WikiLeaks’ plans for releasing the emails that had been hacked from the accounts of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Among other false statements, according to the indictment, Stone told the committee he had no documents, emails or text messages related to those efforts.

In fact, Stone had dozens of emails and text messages stored on his phones and computers that confirmed his interactions with both conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi (referred to in the indictment as “Person 1”) and radio personality Randy Credico (“Person 2”), whom Stone believed had access to Assange.

Although Stone left his position as a Trump campaign adviser in August 2015, he remained a dedicated Trump loyalist. His purpose in pursuing Corsi and Credico was to establish himself as an indispensable intermediary between the campaign and WikiLeaks. According to the indictment, senior campaign officials welcomed and encouraged the undertaking.

Stone’s interactions with Credico, who had interviewed Assange in 2016, are particularly damning. Stone told the committee that while he had gotten information about WikiLeaks from Credico, he never asked Credico to contact Assange on his behalf.

The written communications between Stone and Credico tell a different story. In both texts and emails sent to Credico in September 2016, Stone explicitly requested Credico to reach out to Assange to get dirt on Clinton, including emails related to her tenure as secretary of state.

Worse still, when Credico was invited to appear before the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017, Stone pressured him not to contradict Stone’s own congressional testimony. Although Credico pleaded the Fifth Amendment in front of the committee, he was eventually interviewed by the FBI in 2018. All the while, Stone kept urging Credico not to talk, calling him a “rat” and a “stoolie” and even threatening to steal Credico’s fluffy little therapy dog, Bianca, if he told the truth about their relationship.

The threats failed. In September 2018, Credico testified before Mueller’s grand jury, with Bianca by his side.

Unless Stone changes course and decides to strike a deal with Mueller, it’s hard to see him avoiding conviction and doing serious prison time.

  1. The indictment is all about collusion .

The term “collusion” as used in connection with the Mueller probe is a broad catch-all that embraces both criminal acts amounting to a conspiracy with Russian agents as well as non-criminal acts aimed at forging working relationships and coordination. The term derives from the May 2017 Justice Department order that appointed Mueller to investigate “(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Like Stone’s protestations of innocence, the contention that the indictment has nothing to do with collusion is dubious at best.

In addition to cataloging Stone’s quest to set himself up as the bridge between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, the indictment describes the campaign’s enthusiastic endorsement and proactive encouragement of Stone’s efforts. As paragraph 12 of the indictment alleges:

“After the July 22, 2016, release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1 [WikiLeaks], a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.”

This is collusion and attempted coordination in black and white. It may also be part of a larger criminal conspiracy.

Last July, in a 29-page indictment, Mueller charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking the DNC’s and Podesta’s emails and conspiring “to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Paragraph 44 of the July indictment alleges that as part of their scheme, the Russian agents wrote to a “U.S. person … who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump” to offer their assistance. As Stone acknowledged the day after the indictment was issued, he in all likelihood is that person.

That fact alone doesn’t make Stone a conspirator, either as a principal or as an accessory after the fact to the hacking, but it doesn’t mean he won’t be charged with conspiracy in the future, as Mueller’s case against him builds. The special prosecutor has a well-established track record of filing superseding indictments. Just ask Paul Manafort.

  1. Stone will not be pardoned .

Asked by a reporter Friday whether he’s seeking a pardon from the president, Stone responded like a person auditioning for a reprieve, remarking, “I am one of [Trump’s] oldest friends. I am a fervent supporter of the president. I think he is doing a great job of making America great again.”

Asked again if he expected a pardon, Stone was coy and evasive, quipping, “The only person I have advocated a pardon for is Marcus Garvey.”

Whatever his true expectations or hopes, it isn’t likely that Trump will pardon Stone, at least not preemptively in the fashion that President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for his involvement in Watergate.

Although the president has the legal authority to pardon Stone and others accused of committing federal crimes, Trump has been devastated politically as a result of his gross mismanagement of the just-ended government shutdown. Not only have his approval ratings tanked, but his incompetence as a negotiator has been exposed after he was thoroughly humiliated by the Democrats and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi. There may be more tweets and bombast but little concrete action to rescue Stone or anyone else indicted in the Russia investigation.

  1. Trump may be Mueller’s next target.

In a news conference on July 27, 2016, at his golf course in Doral, Fla., Trump shocked the world when he seemed to encourage the hacking of Clinton’s emails, saying, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

Later that same day, as Mueller subsequently alleged in the Russian hacking indictment, Russian agents tried to penetrate Clinton’s email server. Did they act at Trump’s behest, or just by coincidence?

Although we’re still a long way from receiving an answer to that question, paragraph 12 of the Stone indictment avers that someone at the top directed the Trump campaign to work with Stone on his outreach to WikiLeaks. That person is unnamed, but only for the time being. If the person turns out to be Trump himself, he could well be Mueller’s next target.

  1. The Stone indictment will increase the calls for impeachment.

Under existing Justice Department policy, sitting presidents may not be indicted. Although it is likely that Mueller will follow this policy and refrain from charging Trump with a crime, he is free to recommend impeachment.

Impeachment is a political process, and it is not limited to indictable offenses. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 65, impeachment extends to serious violations of “the public trust.”

In a column published last week, Tom McCarthy, the Guardian’s national affairs correspondent, highlighted a tweet by Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which would initiate any attempt to impeach Trump. Echoing the central inquiry of Watergate, Nadler asked: “Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn. … What did the President know and when did he know it?”

McCarthy also cited a tweet from former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Renato Mariotti about the Stone indictment: “Today’s indictment makes clear that Roger Stone had something to hide. He desperately tried to hide his efforts to coordinate with WikiLeaks from Congress and the public. Why does Donald Trump care so much about ensuring that Stone doesn’t flip? What does he have to hide?”

An impeachment proceeding may be the only way to find out.

  1. In the end, it’s all about the lies.

In the final analysis, we have to ask, along with Nadler and Mariotti, if there was no collusion or conspiracy, why have Trump and so many of his closest aides and advisers lied repeatedly about the 2016 campaign? The indictment of Roger Stone moves us one step closer to the truth.


Hmmm - https://www.laprogressive.com/roger-stone-indictment/

laprogressive.com - Maybe not the most unbiased source.

RonWF’s comment makes some sense here.

RonWF says

January 30, 2019 at 10:02 am

The bottom line is that while Stone may have lied about what he did to Congress, what he did with regards to talking to Wikileaks and attempting to get information they had could be called collusion but it did not involve any actual criminal activity. And if attempting to get damaging information from a 3rd party about one’s political opponents was impeachable half of Congress could be impeached.

Pres. Trump certainly could be impeached – under Speaker Pelosi’s leadership the Democratic party has moved so far to the left that ordinary respect for the country’s governing principles are being abandoned for naked partisanship. But there are no grounds for doing so that meet any standard for “high crimes or misdemeanors”. Impeaching him may play well with their radical base, but it would likely actually HELP Trump in the 2020 election by convincing centrists that a counterbalance is needed.

I would enjoy an impeachment though, just another sign that its all bullshit and hopefully wake a few more up from the ridiculousness of partisan politics.

If lying to Congress is so bad though, why isn’t James Clapper in jail again?


“They’re biased, so they’re wrong!” That’s a fallacy. We can call it the bias fallacy . Here’s why it’s a fallacy: being biased doesn’t entail being wrong. So when someone jumps from the observation that So-and-so is biased to the conclusion that So-and-so is wrong, they commit the bias fallacy. It’s that simple.

So if you’ve seen the bias fallacy online, then go ahead and set the record straight:

‘They’re biased, so they’re wrong.’ Not so fast! We can be biased without being wrong. #TheBiasFallacy

2. Explanation of The Bias Fallacy

Let me clarify what the bias fallacy is. The bias fallacy has a certain structure. It identifies So-and-so’s bias. And then it infers from the mere existence of So-and-so’s bias to the conclusion that So-and-so is incorrect. So, in its simplest form, the structure of the bias fallacy involves two parts:

So-and-so is biased.

Therefore , So-and-so is wrong.

It is important to notice that the bias fallacy involves a particular inference : inferring falsehood from bias. This relationship is represented by the ‘therefore’ in the example of above. But it might be represented by all sorts of words and phrases in other contexts (e.g., ‘so’, ‘because’, ‘thereby’, etc.).

And that inference is the fallacy . It’s a fallacy because the inference is wrong: falsehood does not necessarily follow from bias. After all, someone can be biased and also be correct. Again, it’s that simple.

But we should be careful here. Take a look at two phrases with a structure that is similar to the bias fallacy. This time, however, the fallacious inference is missing:

So-and-so is biased

So-and-so is wrong.

These claims are entirely independent. So these statements are not saying that So-and-so is wrong because they are biased. So-and-so’s Bias and wrongness can be completely unrelated based on these two claims. So this is not an instance of the bias fallacy.

3. But bias increases our chances of being wrong, right?

At this point, you might be thinking that I am merely making some esoteric point that only academics care about. After all, bias is always bad, right? So even if bias doesn’t entail falsehood, it still increases our chances of being wrong…right?


Think about the ways in which someone can be biased. Sure, people can be biased against certain races, genders, classes, etc. We probably agree that those are bad biases. And those biases can lead to false claims — e.g., false claims about race, gender, etc. But this doesn’t mean that all biases are bad, that all biases lead to falsehood, or even that all biases increase the chances of being wrong.

Consider medical science. If we want to find out whether smoking causes cancer, then we are going to want to observe peoples’ smoking habits, peoples’ cancer rates, and perhaps some other related variables (e.g., peoples’ exposure to certain kinds of radiation, etc.). But there’s lots of stuff that we do not want to measure. We don’t want to observe people’s music preferences, favorite color, etc. Those variables are irrelevant to the causes of cancer. So good scientific investigation seems to require certain biases. In this case, it was a selection bias: a bias in favor of only relevant evidence.

And this is true more generally: good investigations should involve certain biases.

And, therefore, bias does not necessarily increase the chances of being wrong. In some cases, bias might actually decrease the chances of being wrong.

4. What To Do About The Bias Fallacy

Imagine that you or someone you know witnesses you committing the bias fallacy. You erroneously inferred that So-and-so is wrong from So-and-so’s bias. What should you do now?

First , acknowledge the fallacy.

Second , acknowledge that it is a fallacy. (And, to be clear, the bias fallacy is usually a certain type of an existing class of fallacies — not a newfound fallacy.)

Third , reflect on the merits and demerits of the claim that you thought was wrong.

That is, consider whether So-and-so is right regardless of their bias(es). Some people are less likely to reflect about that (Jost & Krochik 2014; Linvill 2013; Linville & Mazer 2011, 2013). So some people might have to try harder than others.

But most of us will have to go way out of our way to properly reflect on the matter. We cannot simply go to our friends, family, and usual information outlets. After all, we tend to agree with them (Halberstam & Knight 2016). Instead, we have to seek out people and institutions that disagree with us. Those people will be much more motivated to notice the merits and demerits of a claim that we will simply overlook. So until we’ve done the hard work of genuinely considered the perspective of people who disagree with us, we’re in no position to make a good judgment about a claim.

Now let’s say that you’ve done these steps: you’ve admitted the fallacy and done the hard investigative work. So you can now clearly, cogently, and concisely explain why So-and-so’s claim is right or wrong. Now you’re ready for the final step.

Fourth , document your explanation of why So-and-so is right or wrong — so that you don’t have to redo it from memory every time the topic comes up. Better yet, make the explanation public so that others can scrutinize it and — if it passes muster — appreciate it.

5. Takeaways

Being biased does not entail being wrong. It is possible that someone who is biased is wrong, but they are not necessarily wrong because they are biased. And — more importantly — biased people or institutions are sometimes correct.

So we cannot dismiss the claims of biased people and institutions just because of their bias.

Instead, we have to carefully and thoroughly evaluate claims on a case-by-case basis. And that is no easy feat. We often have to go way out of our way to do this. For instance, in 2016, I had to read over 1000 pages of investigative reports and talk to lots of people that I don’t usually talk to.

Yes,I agree


Maybe not racists…my thing was in clarification of the Immigrants, Trump says its an emergency, crisis…hes so full of it that i cant help but laugh (with regard to them being dangerous and crap like girls take birth control cuz they might get raped…yeah he said that…dude lies so much its comical)
Statistically, Americans by FAR commit more crimes than immigrants. Its not even close…so why not “ban” them?
Another statistic is of African Americans having extremely high arrest rates and being in prison.
And as ive said before, why not “ban” them too?

It sucks…especially when one is forced to look in the mirror at their own flaws.

MASSIVE statement…you need to back that up with statistics and facts tho as a simple statement like that can CLEARLY come off the wrong way.

You know what man…i really try not to be bias…but because its convenient…trump supporters would REALLY struggle with this in our current climate.

The Q-Anon thing is right up there.
Its funny because everything, to them…is for the deep state is going to try and take down trump.
Yet, they never consider Trump having meetings with Putin WITHOUT an US TRANSLATOR…ONLY a RUSSIAN translator…he says Russia, can you hack Hillarys emails…and much more.
Yet they act as if all that stuff is innocent.
Hell, i wouldnt be surprised at all if Q-Anon WAS russian propaganda.




“Mr. Stone will do what he said on the courthouse steps: he won’t bear false witness against Mr. Trump. What that really means is something else: he is willing to step into a court-of-law and face down Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors.”

This bit really made me laugh :rofl:

Stone was very careful with his words. He says he won’t bear false witness but that leaves him very open to telling the truth about Trump!!

The problem with most of the reporting on the Special Counsel’s investigation is that most reporters don’t understand how someone like Mueller goes about their business. I have seen it all through that “none of this ties back to Trump blah blah” but Mueller isn’t showing his entire hand for a few reasons. The main one is that Trump can play dumb and say all the charges have nothing to do with him (although if his lawyers are worth anything they will absolutely know that this is not the case) and it was some unknown coffee boy breaking the law etc etc. Secondly Mueller uses the multitude of other indictments he has on Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Cohen as leverage to make them spill the beans on Trump and if they want to stay out of prison then they will. It doesn’t mean that they will make stuff up but the will corroborate the mountain of evidence that Mueller already has that Trump has been selling the presidency for personal profit with the Russians, UAE, Israel, etc etc

Mueller knows exactly how to get the evidence required to convict a mob boss as he has done it before!


I am just trying to bring some balance to this thread and keep from talking to the racist. I am just glad I am not white.


Point taken!

He will fall.
His arrogance…doing the Nixon imitation…and these arent even REMOTELY close to being tough guys.
Just rich dudes thinking that they are tough…


Martin Luther King was saying not the color of your skin but the content of your character. I would never know that reading through a lot of these comments people are putting. It’s obvious from reading comments that the only form of racism that still excepted is racism against the white community. People that are actually against racism would be against it for all human beings on the earth. If there’s one thing that we learned from seeing the Native Americans in the Black community getting singled out and hurt because of that it’s that when one group of people is allowed to be picked on and destroyed the next group of people to get destroyed is probably yourself. It’s as if judging people based on the contents of who they are as a human being through their actions is not even considered anymore. Concepts of collective guilt don’t exist to me, I’m guilty for what I have done through my own actions in my own life and the same goes for you. Historically we have seen this type of collective guilt being used as mind control. The Catholic church for instance tells everybody they have original sin which is a form of collective guilt. What’s the difference between people hating people cause their skin is white and saying they’re guilty just by being born a sinner. To me that’s all just delusional bullshit. People are guilty of what they have done through their actions end of story. It’s also so hypocritical for people to complain about race all day and then engage in racism the same paragraphs. The world is bigger then race, gender, and your sexual preference. People need to expand their viewpoint to see a wider pallet of what the world is and has to offer and not just stay in this race-based tunnel vision where everything has to be about the three things I just mentioned race, gender, and your sexual preference. People are doing the opposite of what Martin Luther King said they’re basing things off the color of peoples skin and not the content of their character at the same time is acting like their social justice warrior crusaders against white people. I think what gets me though is just the hypocritical nature of being against racism while engaging in it at the same time… The other side of that though is that I’m all for free speech and the only speech that really needs to be protected is the speech that nobody wants to hear including you people acting like everybody that has conservative values is somehow racist for some reason when that’s obviously not true. I don’t consider myself right or left I consider myself more of a Libertarian. If the leftists in America would have stopped Hillary from stealing 13 states from Bernie Sanders there’s a very good chance that Donald wouldn’t even be there right now. The people complaining the most had nothing to say about that… Don’t just become a clone of the television, make sure that your life amounts to more than that…


First off, SPECIFY what/who you are talking about in regards to this comment.
We have had TWO threads for Trump and hundreds of posts and you are, I believe the first to state this…but in regards to that…

There are a TON of ways to counter your argument in this regard…the attack surface is so broad that i dont know where id begin.

–Off the top of my head, Trumps cabinet is Primarily older White males. With the exception of Ben Carson, and Amarosa (spelling)…and considering many are in legal trouble.

Obama was a bit more diverse.
Couple this with Tucker Carlsons “Browning” of American (Rant on fox news…and Laura Ingram) and…i feel as if your cries fall on deaf ears.
THEN i see the posts of Right wingers with extreme hatred toward the women and the VERY different elected and diverse officials…becasue there is a certain demographic that wants America to look a certain way and they cannot handle the change.

No diversity.
No Peter.
No John.
No Bitcoin club.
No Bitcoin…

I would agree.
But the Democratic party are showing some concerning things. Corporate Dems seem to hate progressives.
And in progressive circles, that was well known and people were pissed about it, but becasue progressives dont get alot of air time, it seemed to go under the radar.
There are cracks in the Democratic party, and this is one of them. Corporate Dems are just as bad as Corporate Republicans.


Pointing out statistics is not racist.
African Americans are the most incarcerated group of people.
Thats fact…yet most cops are White…that is also fact.

But the question is…why?
Are Blacks more violent…or are the cops harboring racist viewpoints and it being shown in the arrests.


From where I come from, pointing out race is racist. But, his stats are from 1 year, do not factor in population, and what about other violent crimes.