192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 02:43 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
Anything else [except proof] is speculation and unimportant.


Does absolute proof need to be established before an investigation commences?

Don't think so. Otherwise there would be nobody in jail except the people who signed confessions.

Certainly not absolute proof, but there should at least be a tiny particle of evidence.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Fri 26 May, 2017 03:21 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Like you are honest?


You don't read so good, eh, Ollie? I didn't claim I was honest.

And I wouldn't.

Cause I aint.

But at least I'm honest about that.

Blabby, on the other hand, tries to present himself as a pillar of piety--a dispassionate, objective, impartial devotee of TRUTH, who is out to save mankind from falsehood.

Like I done said--that boy, he just aint honest, eh?

When it come to truth, I'm with Mark Twain:

Quote:
“Honesty is the best policy -- when there is money in it.”
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  6  
Fri 26 May, 2017 03:30 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
1. Interesting that the NYT has the memo yet keeps it hidden rather than printing it.

If they actually have the memo they don't need to print it; it's perfectly unacceptable for them to quote it. Are you implying that they concocted an utterly fictitious story? Why would they do that — especially when there's an investigation going on that will surely want to look at the memo?
Quote:
2. Unnamed sources. That proves it's true.

No, you guys can't seem to get this — when a charge is made or a story is reported that's "news". It's the investigation that seeks to establish the truth.
Quote:
Certainly not absolute proof, but there should at least be a tiny particle of evidence.

How do you know there isn't? Are you part of the investigation or something and know what information and material they have in their possession?
layman
 
  0  
Fri 26 May, 2017 03:49 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

[1] If they actually have the memo they don't need to print it; it's perfectly unacceptable for them to quote it.

[2]No, you guys can't seem to get this — when a charge is made or a story is reported that's "news".

[3]How do you know there isn't? Are you part of the investigation or something and know what information and material they have in their possession?


[1] You probably meant to say "acceptable," eh? Thing is, they DON'T have it, and have said so. Some guy (God only knows who) read some **** to them over the phone, that's all.

[2]You'll never learn, willya? Ya done been schooled on this. It is not "news" if someone starts and unsubstantiated rumor. No respectable paper will "report" any old trash that comes their way. That's why nobody (except buzzfeed) would publish the Trump "dossier." Even the disreputable rags, like Wapo, wouldn't touch that one.

[3] Where ya been the last year? This has been investigated by a "joint team" involving the FBI, CIA, and the NSA, who were told by Brennan to "focus exclusively" on the matter, for about that long, and congress has been fully briefed on the results.

Yet every congressman (and there are many) who has spoken on the topic, including Maxine Waters and Diane Feinstein, have said they have seen NO evidence of "collusion." So, no, we don't know something they don't. We simply know what they do know, because they've told us. Your fallacious "argument from ignorance" aint makin it, pal.

Nice try, cheese-eater.

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Fri 26 May, 2017 04:14 am
What'd ya say, layman? I can't hear you.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Fri 26 May, 2017 04:35 am
Quote:
One of the greatest political mysteries of our time is why President Trump has clung — and continues to cling — so steadfastly to the perfidious Michael Flynn.

Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser, is at the nexus of Trump’s problems. There was Flynn’s lobbying on behalf of Turkey and his contacts with Russia. There was Trump’s dismissal of all warnings to steer clear of Flynn; his refusal to fire Flynn as soon as he was alerted to the fact that Flynn posed a security risk; his efforts to impede or even terminate the investigations of Flynn.

Not only has Trump staunchly defended Flynn — even after firing him — he is apparently still in contact with him, sending him encouraging messages. As Michael Isikoff reported last week for Yahoo News about a dinner Flynn convened with “a small group of loyalists”:

Not only did he remain loyal to President Trump; he indicated that he and the president were still in communication. “I just got a message from the president to stay strong,” Flynn said after the meal was over, according to two sources who are close to Flynn and are familiar with the conversation, which took place on April 25.

This level of extreme fealty is puzzling. It extends beyond basic loyalty to an early supporter. It seems to me that there is something else at play here, something as yet unknown. Trump’s attachment to Flynn strikes me less as an act of fidelity and more as an exercise in fear. What does Flynn know that Trump doesn’t want the world to know?

What are the dirty details of what could only be called The Flynn Affair?

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who served as head of the Trump transition team before being brushed aside for Vice President Mike Pence, said he warned Trump about Flynn. As Christie said earlier this week: “I didn’t think that he was someone who would bring benefit to the president or to the administration, and I made that very clear to candidate Trump, and I made it very clear to President-elect Trump.”

Christie continued: “If I were president-elect of the United States, I wouldn’t let General Flynn into the White House, let alone give him a job.”

Trump apparently ignored the warning.

Barack Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn. As The New York Times reported earlier this month:

Mr. Obama, who had fired Mr. Flynn as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Mr. Trump that he would have profound concerns about Mr. Flynn becoming a top national security aide, said the administration officials, who were briefed on the Oval Office conversation. Mr. Trump later ignored the advice, naming Mr. Flynn to be his national security adviser.

Sally Q. Yates, the acting attorney general, warned Trump about Flynn. As The Times reported earlier this month, when she delivered mesmerizing testimony before a Senate subcommittee, Yates informed the White House, less than a week into the Trump administration, that Flynn had lied to Pence about his Russian contacts and was vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.

As Yates put it, “To state the obvious: You don’t want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians.”

Trump again ignored the warning.

Eighteen days passed. Then, on Monday, Feb. 13, The Washington Post reported that Yates had warned Trump about Flynn, a warning the White House had kept secret.

That night, according to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Trump requested Flynn’s resignation, with Spicer saying the following day:

“The evolving and eroding level of trust as a result of this situation in a series of other questionable instances is what led the president to ask for General Flynn’s resignation.”

Spicer quickly pointed out that the firing was not caused by a “legal issue, but rather a trust issue.”

As White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway said on television that Tuesday morning, “It was misleading the vice president that made the situation unsustainable.”

In fact, it appeared that it was Trump being embarrassed by press reports that he had been warned of Flynn’s treachery and had done nothing with the information that led to Flynn’s ultimate resignation.

In Trump’s mind, this was all the fault of the press, not Flynn’s double-dealing or the president’s own faulty vetting and subsequent inaction. In a news conference the day after Spicer described Flynn’s departure, Trump said of Flynn, “I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media — as I call it, the fake media, in many cases.” Trump continued, “I think it’s really a sad thing he was treated so badly.”

The day after Flynn was forced out his job, Trump told the former F.B.I. director, James Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” according to contemporaneous notes written by Comey, referring to a meeting in which Trump asked Comey to lay off the federal investigation of Flynn.

Comey wouldn’t let it go, and Trump would later fire him and reportedly brag about it to Russians in the Oval Office a day later: “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job.” Trump continued, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Now, all the hoops Trump has jumped through to hire, keep and protect Flynn may lead to Trump’s undoing. The question of whether Trump’s actions amount to obstruction of justice is very real. The White House Counsel’s Office is researching impeachment. This week Trump retained Marc Kasowitz as outside counsel for his impending legal problems. This is going to get ugly.

So the question not only remains, but is amplified in this light: What about Flynn is worth all this? Why continue to stick by someone who seems to have so clearly been in the wrong and is causing you such woes?

Does Flynn have knowledge of something so damaging that it keeps Trump crouched in his defense? This is the question that ongoing investigations must answer, particularly the investigation now led by the Justice Department’s newly appointed special counsel, Robert Mueller.

It’s time to lay bare this fishy bromance and come to know the full breadth of Flynn’s furtive activities and whether Trump was aware or complicit, before, during or after. Kick back America; it’s Mueller time.


NYT
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Fri 26 May, 2017 05:52 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
1. Interesting that the NYT has the memo yet keeps it hidden rather than printing it.

If they actually have the memo they don't need to print it; it's perfectly unacceptable for them to quote it. Are you implying that they concocted an utterly fictitious story? Why would they do that — especially when there's an investigation going on that will surely want to look at the memo?

I don't think I will trust their characterization of some document they allude to. When they quote at least a portion of the memo word for word, then I will trust it. Like most "evidence" from the left these days, this is basically hearsay.

hightor wrote:

Quote:
2. Unnamed sources. That proves it's true.

No, you guys can't seem to get this — when a charge is made or a story is reported that's "news". It's the investigation that seeks to establish the truth.

Newspapers are supposed to do better than "some guy said." Do they have double corroboration for their facts? Some guy said that a statue of the Virgin Mary spoke to him. Hardly real news.

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Certainly not absolute proof, but there should at least be a tiny particle of evidence.

How do you know there isn't? Are you part of the investigation or something and know what information and material they have in their possession?

I don't know there isn't. I just know that no one seems able to produce it.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 05:59 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
When they quote at least a portion of the memo word for word, then I will trust it.

They HAVE quoted a section word for word:

Quote:
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 06:04 am
@layman,
Quote:
As I've said before, sometimes the best way of detecting biased, one-sided, misleading reporting is to pay attention to what is NOT reported.


That is what totally broke me away from the Washington Post originally in the mid-1990s, that is, lying by omission. At that point I finally had enough and said something like "HEY, **** you idiots, if you're not going to print the news because the news isn't politically correct, I can find other ways to get news, even if it means getting all my news from Russia!!!" By 96 or 97, the Internet had reached the point at which I didn't really need newspapers anymore.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Fri 26 May, 2017 06:26 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
When they quote at least a portion of the memo word for word, then I will trust it.

They HAVE quoted a section word for word:

Quote:
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”


I doubt it. It sounds like some guy said that he heard. Show me the memo, or a reasonable portion, word for word.
blatham
 
  5  
Fri 26 May, 2017 06:43 am
The NYT has analyzed a lot of footage from the Turkish security assault on protesters. These guys are seriously ugly. NYT
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Fri 26 May, 2017 06:58 am
Trump's "Draining the Swamp" con continues
Quote:
As C.E.O. Pay Packages Grow, Top
Executives Have the President’s Ear
The top 200 chief executives, who make more than
last year, are holding meetings with President Trump,
who is considering rolling back Dodd-Frank regulations.
NYT

Meanwhile, of course, those many millions of citizens in need of life-sustaining support for selves and for their families, are going to have their chances in life dramatically damaged if the Trump health plan and budget are passed.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:14 am
In our continuing "Read A Conservative" series...

Michael Gerson, George W Bush's main speechwriter, has it right
Quote:
The conservative mind has become diseased

To many observers on the left, the initial embrace of Seth Rich conspiracy theories by conservative media figures was merely a confirmation of the right’s deformed soul. But for those of us who remember that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were once relatively mainstream Reaganites, their extended vacation in the fever swamps is even more disturbing. If once you knew better, the indictment is deeper.

The cruel exploitation of the memory of Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead last summer, was horrifying and clarifying. The Hannity right, without evidence, accused Rich rather than the Russians of leaking damaging DNC emails. In doing so, it has proved its willingness to credit anything — no matter how obviously deceptive or toxic — to defend President Trump and harm his opponents. Even if it means becoming a megaphone for Russian influence.
WP
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:20 am
@Brandon9000,
And if they quote any other section of that memo, you won't believe them anymore than you believe the section they quoted. Got it...
revelette1
 
  2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:23 am
It is not only collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia FBI is looking into, but also financial crimes. Personally, I think the financial crimes might take years but there will be some indictments out of it.

Quote:
In addition to possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election, investigators are also looking broadly into possible financial crimes — but the people familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak publicly, did not specify who or what was being examined.


WP
snood
 
  2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:24 am
@revelette1,
Why do you think it will take so long?
revelette1
 
  2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:31 am
@blatham,
Quote:
If you had any doubts about what a complete embarrassment Trump is for the US, watch this video of him during the NATO conference. This video is going to go around the world and validate everyone's notions of what an incredibly graceless creep this guy is.
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/donald-trump-shoves-nato-leader-to-be-in-front-of-group.html


Embarrassed Embarrassed
revelette1
 
  2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:36 am
@snood,
I don't know, I guess because every time I read an article about FBI probes, they usually talk about how long they usually take. I guess, I am preparing myself to be patient.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:37 am
@revelette1,
Take that video of Trump at the Nato meeting, Gianforte's assault of a reporter (and right wing celebration of it) and Gerson's column linked just above and one gets to a process where a Mussolini figure and ethos can rise to power in the US.
revelette1
 
  2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:46 am
@blatham,
I've been out with a stomach flue just 24 hours, I miss a lot it seems. Despicable about Gianforte but unfortunately getting to be the norm. Glad he was charged with assault and hope the charge sticks to him.

Montana Republican wins special election, apologizes for scuffle with reporter (WP)
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 11:14:38