When do you finally admit that Trump IS the swamp?

What I told you are verifiable facts.

What you claim are unsubstantiable right wing echo chamber spin.

Is the FBI perfect? No. No organization is without fault, but the Trump admin weaponized the DOJ yet you ignore that fact. Hell, Trump has made no secret about it, he plans 'retribution'.

 

You missed the point.

 

Many presidents capitalize on their fame. They do it in a number of ways. Fame is a valuable asset, you can do speeches at typically $50k a pop, even more, invest wisely, write books for a multi million dollar advance, etc, etc., etc. Most presidents do this.

As for 'millions', he's worth a few million, but a few million in today's money is really just upper middle class.

Forbes has done a few articles on precisely how joe Biden earned his money, and you will find it very much in keeping with how other presidents have done the same, once out of office.

Why don't you google it?

A friend of mine, 20 years ago, invested $25k it's now worth about a million. Had she done it 30 years ago, as Biden did, she'd probably be in Biden's ball park. Just be smart about money, that's all. It's not that complicated nor does it automatically point to wrong doing.

 

much of those payments for speeches are nothing more than trying to buy access. Example-Goldman Sachs paying Hilary 200K for 30 minute speeches. a girl I dated at Law school is a Partner there. not a Hilary fan but she wryly noted WTF was Hilary going to say to people who do billion dollar deals before breakfast and have MBAs from places like Columbia, Penn, Cornell and Harvard

 

For MAGA Republicans to commit retribution in the same way Democrats have, that would be un-American. Using lawfare is not the answer. It breaks down our society. Retribution in the sense we sit back, take a look at every bureaucracy and "lean them out". Get rid of every hint of them operating outside their scope of duty. Prosecute those that conspired to use agencies for that purpose. Some bureaucracies could be eliminated all together. Why do we need both an FBI and CIA? Those are both pretty scary in that they can be abused. Eliminate one or lean them down. Make them accountable!
Is the FBI perfect? Don't make excuses! They had 51 operatives testify the Steele dossier was real and verified before the 2016 election. They intimidated social media to block Hunter's laptop as "Russian Intimidation". The CIA justified that tidbit. They were used solely for political purposes. Trump was right. They did use FISA warrants to spy on his campaign. Don't even get me started on the DOJ!!

 

If Biden made his millions on investments that will be very easy to prove. Is he smart about money??? There is no proof of that! Not taxpayer money anyway.

 

If there were no evidence against Trump for his crimes, you'd have a point.

But, the truth is that Repoubs are using Congress for retribution, as they have yet to produce any evidence against Joe Biden. They have yet to prove money laundering, influence peddling, corruption by Hunter OR Joe.

Steele never offered his dossier as fact, only as 'raw intel' what that means is that 'subject to verification'. Only parts of it were verified, and the rest has yet to be confirmed. But, I think you are confused:

1. Steele Dossier: The Steele dossier is a collection of memos compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. It alleges contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign, including compromising information on then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump1.
   
   
2. Operatives Testifying: There is no evidence that 51 FBI operatives testified to the veracity of the Steele dossier. The dossier itself has been a subject of controversy and skepticism. It was not verified by the FBI or any other intelligence agency before the 2016 election.
   
   
3. FBI’s Assessment: The Inspector General’s report on 2016 FBI spying revealed that the FBI relied on the Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign operative Carter Page, that's' true. However, the report also highlighted significant flaws in the FBI’s handling of the dossier. For instance, the FBI omitted key information from the court about Steele’s motives and the fact that he was "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected"2. But Trump omitted the fact of his fornicating with a porn star from the electorate by paying her $130k to keep quiet just before the election.
   
   
4. Hunter Biden’s Laptop: The claim seems to conflate the Steele dossier with the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop. In 2020, 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter suggesting that material from Hunter Biden’s laptop had “classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” However, none of these officials had seen the laptop material, and their letter was used to deflect scrutiny from Joe Biden during the election campaign3.
   

In summary, the claim lacks factual basis. The Steele dossier was not verified by 51 FBI operatives, and its credibility remains a matter of debate.

I researched your above claims, and I shall critique it with the following results:

Let’s analyze the statement step by step, annotations link to substantiation:

1. Blocking Hunter’s Laptop:
   
   • The claim suggests that social media platforms were intimidated into blocking information related to Hunter Biden’s laptop by labeling it as “Russian Intimidation.”
   • Fact: In May 2023, a report revealed that the CIA conspired with former acting director Mike Morell and the Biden campaign to produce a letter falsely claiming that emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop were Russian disinformation. This letter was used to discredit The New York Post’s report on the Biden emails1.
   • Context: The controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop involved allegations of corruption and questionable business dealings. Social media platforms did take actions to limit the spread of the laptop story, but the motivations behind those actions remain a subject of debate and so your claim is merely an unsubstantiated opinion.
2. CIA’s Involvement:
   
   • The statement claims that the CIA justified the notion that the laptop information was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
   • Fact: The CIA’s involvement in producing the letter falsely suggesting Russian disinformation is documented. The letter was intended to provide Joe Biden with ammunition during the final presidential debate against Donald Trump1.
   • Context: The motivations behind the CIA’s actions and the accuracy of their assessment are points of contention. Some argue that the letter was politically motivated, while others believe it was a genuine concern about disinformation. Overall, you claim is not conclusive.
3. Political Purposes:
   
   • The claim asserts that the laptop information was used solely for political purposes.
   • Fact: The handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story was indeed influenced by political considerations. However, the extent to which it was purely political or had legitimate national security implications remains a matter of interpretation.
   • Context: During election campaigns, information related to candidates can be weaponized for political gain. It’s essential to critically evaluate such claims and consider the broader context.
4. FISA Warrants and Spying:
   
   • The statement alleges that FISA warrants were used to spy on Trump’s campaign.
   • Fact: In January 2020, it was revealed that two of the FBI’s four applications for warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to spy on a Trump campaign adviser lacked probable cause and should not have been issued2.
   • Context: The FISA warrants were related to surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign associate. The controversy surrounding these warrants raised concerns about the application process and transparency.

In summary, the claim contains elements of truth but oversimplifies complex issues. The handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the use of FISA warrants are multifaceted topics that require careful examination beyond partisan narratives.

 

Forbes did a couple of articles on how Joe made his money, and it wasn't 'millions' in the since of hundreds of millions or anything that could be characterized as super rich, maybe less than 10 million, which puts him in the upper middle class, or the extreme bottom of the upper class and it puts him on par with other presidents who left office.

 

trump lost money being president, Obama, clinton and Biden vastly increased their net worths.

 

You seem to have little comprehension of what the swamp actually is. One can easily recognize swamp rats. They are the ones, both Democrats and never-Trumper Republicans, who screamed bloody murder when Trump said he was going to drain the swamp and many believed he might actually be able to do it. It scared the bejesus out of them.

 

You seem to have little comprehension that he not only didn't drain the swamp, he never intended to. How could he since his real intent was to wallow in it?

 

Your latter two points are not true and simply made up talking points. Trump had every intention of draining the swamp during his campaign. Many though he might actually be able to do it and it scared their pants off, being full fledged swamp rats. However, he did a lousy job of draining, mostly, in his worst decision of his presidency IMO, when very early on he thought he could mend fences by keeping the old hands (both Republican and Democrat) on board. While he knew fully well he had to work with congress and administrators, swamp rats or not, he never wanted to or hoped to wallow in the swamp.

 

So true! The left and so called "moderates" alway are crying for compromise and bi-partisan support. That, as of the last decade at least, has always gone left. That is how the swamp got so deeply entrenched. We have a very good chance now of extricating it entirely. It scares them to death! So now they accuse Trump of giving you that long leash. Bet you they won't get it again!

 

Trump made millions while president.

However, his unpopularity caused property valuations to diminish enough to offset those gains to a net negative.

That fact doesn't change the fact that he made millions OFF of the presidency.

Since O, C, & B had little net worth to begin with, the only way is up from there, so what you are implying is a false equivalency, apples and oranges being the comparative basis are the difference of circumstances.

 

Trump was one of the richest men to enter the presidency. Clinton Obama and Biden were not and they all are loaded. It's funny how the left whines about how unfair America is yet these guys parlayed pubic office into massive wealth

 

Simply and obviously not true. Trump made many millions from his business enterprises while he was president but zero off his presidency. Being president likely cost him personally millions of dollars not to mention not accepting one cent of his presidential pay.