7
   

Obstruction of Justice: Trump asked Comey to shut down investigation of Flynn

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2017 01:37 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I just checked Oralloy -- https://able2know.org/user/oralloy/
Your past 25 posts have all been defending Trump,

I just explained why. It would be tedious for me to repeat myself.


maxdancona wrote:
it seems like an obsession.

Do you understand why, if you go see Dunkirk this summer, it is very important to see it in the proper format?
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2017 01:39 pm
@oralloy,
You are funny Oralloy. I like you.

If you ever stop obsessively posting defenses of Trump's behavior long enough to start your thread on Dunkirk, I will stop by and say hello.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2017 01:53 pm
@maxdancona,
Huh, his last 3 here were about Dunkirk and movie theaters...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2017 02:01 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
If you ever stop obsessively posting defenses of Trump's behavior long enough to start your thread on Dunkirk, I will stop by and say hello.

Do you think I should start a thread on it?
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2017 04:42 pm
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529171249/report-trump-told-russians-he-fired-nut-job-comey-because-of-investigation
Quote:
President Trump told Russian officials last week that he had fired the "nut job" FBI Director James Comey in order to ease the pressure of the mounting investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia, according to a report from The New York Times.

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump told the Russian foreign minister and U.S. ambassador on May 10 during an Oval Office meeting, according to a transcript of the meeting read to The Times by a U.S. official. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."


White House press secretary Sean Spicer did not dispute the account of the conversation to The Times and, in a statement to NPR, argued that the Russia investigation was harming U.S. foreign policy.

"The President has always emphasized the importance of making deals with Russia as it relates to Syria, Ukraine, defeating ISIS and other key issues for the benefit and safety of the American people. By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia's actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia," Spicer said. "The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations."

The May 10 meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak came one day after Trump abruptly fired Comey, which the White House argued at first was because of a memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein pointing to Comey's mismanagement of the investigation into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's private email server. Trump later said he had already decided to fire Comey regardless of Rosenstein's memo, which the deputy attorney general confirmed to Congress this week.

At the same meeting, the The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Trump had given the Russians "highly classified information," which "jeopardized a critical source of intelligence" on ISIS that came from a key ally, which, according to later reports, was Israel. No American reporters were allowed in to document the meeting, only a Russian Foreign Ministry photographer.

The Times report on Friday afternoon is just the latest bombshell story over the past week and adds to mounting headaches for the White House just as Trump has departed for his first foreign trip as president.

Amid growing pressure, Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to oversee the Department of Justice's Russia investigation. Mueller was tapped for that post the day after another report from The Times, subsequently confirmed to NPR by two sources, that Trump had asked Comey to scuttle the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Flynn was let go after less than a month on the job after it was revealed he had misled Vice President Pence over his conversation during the transition with Kislyak about U.S. sanctions.

Trump has denied he asked Comey to do that, though Comey wrote a memo after their encounter memorializing Trump's words to that effect ("I hope you can let this go"), according to sources close to the former FBI director.

"There is no collusion between, certainly myself and my campaign, but I can only speak for myself and the Russians. Zero," Trump said Thursday during a press conference with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2017 02:35 pm
@maxdancona,
Except that Erick Erickson was never on board the Trump ship to begin with, so using his Red State article as evidence that conservatives are jumping ship is completely erroneous.

The reality is that there were far more conservative voices expressing displeasure with Trump's candidacy from the very start and through the election, than their progressive counterparts as regards HRC.

Now the facile response might be: "Well that's because HRC's candidacy was clearly the superior choice," but I don't think even you believe that.

Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2017 06:18 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Oh, I definitely believe that Hillary was the better choice. Bring back the nineties, when men were men, mistresses were mistresses, and people had Full Time jobs for the asking.
ossobucotemp
 
  4  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2017 06:42 pm
I'm a dem to be able to vote in primaries, not because I'm conservative, though I often get their points, understand and disagree, but because I'm left of dem. I've long not liked Hillary and said so on a2k. On the other hand, I instantly got much of Bernie's take on matters. I was for him for months and then switched - because of his age, and because I didn't think he could win. I didn't like Hillary, but I didn't completely hate her. That was a political move (one vote, but still..) and I later said I was sorry that I switched from the guy I liked.

Now, what seems long later, I have to say I'd not caught on to the strength of the Hillary hate, probably dumb of me, mixed with Trump being so liked, a smack on the forehead.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2017 12:54 am
@Blickers,
You mean the 90's when she was last president?
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2017 08:08 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
No, when her husband was, and nobody's been able to see any great distance between the two on most positions. Besides which, she said she'd put Bill in charge of the economy, and that can only be a good thing.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2017 10:43 pm
@Blickers,
Except he wasn't the reason the economy was good. The economy was good because Newt Gingrich forced him to balance the budget.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2017 12:54 pm
@oralloy,
Gingrich didn't do squat for balancing the budget. The deficit was already headed sharply DOWNWARD under the Democratic Congress and Democrat Bill Clinton from when he first took office in January of 1993. Gingrich would not be Speaker of the House until January of 1995. About the only credit you can give Gingrich and the Republicans for is that they had the good sense to work with the President and the Democratic minority keep a good thing going once they gained the majority.

http://i68.tinypic.com/21xuvp.jpg

As you can see, that "negative deficit" in 1997 on is a surplus.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2017 01:55 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Gingrich didn't do squat for balancing the budget.

That is incorrect. Newt engaged in a series of budget battles with Clinton, and was often harshly demonized when Clinton would keep the government shut down wrongly blame him for it. But the ultimate result of the budget battles was that Clinton spent far less than he otherwise would have, and thus the budget was balanced.


Blickers wrote:
The deficit was already headed sharply DOWNWARD under the Democratic Congress and Democrat Bill Clinton from when he first took office in January of 1993.

True, but it was not down to the point of being balanced until Newt and the budget battles.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2017 09:43 pm
@oralloy,
As the chart indicates, in the two years before the Republicans even took power in the House and Senate and made Gingrich Speaker, the deficit had been cut nearly in half. And Gingrich didn't have a thing to so with it. All Gingrich and the Republicans had to do was follow the same deficit-cutting course the Democrats and Clinton already had going for two years, and the deficit would disappear. Clinton and the Democrats did all the heavy lifting here.

http://i68.tinypic.com/21xuvp.jpg

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 May, 2017 03:27 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
As the chart indicates, in the two years before the Republicans even took power in the House and Senate and made Gingrich Speaker, the deficit had been cut nearly in half. And Gingrich didn't have a thing to so with it.

Good for them. That is not the same as a balanced budget though.


Blickers wrote:
All Gingrich and the Republicans had to do was follow the same deficit-cutting course the Democrats and Clinton already had going for two years, and the deficit would disappear.

No. If they would have done the same thing as in the previous years, the deficit would have remained at about the same levels of those previous years.


Blickers wrote:
Clinton and the Democrats did all the heavy lifting here.

That is incorrect. They fought bitterly against Newt Gingrich's budget cuts and demonized him brutally for them.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 May, 2017 06:31 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Blickers wrote:
Clinton and the Democrats did all the heavy lifting here.

That is incorrect. They fought bitterly against Newt Gingrich's budget cuts and demonized him brutally for them.


Shocked
Did...did he really just say that?!
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2017 12:36 pm
@oralloy,
Quote Oralloy:
Quote:
No. If they [the Democrats] would have done the same thing as in the previous years, the deficit would have remained at about the same levels of those previous years.

The Democrats did different things when Bill Clinton became president because, like most Democrats, Bill Clinton understands economics better than Republicans. Republicans are under the delusion that deficit cutting creates jobs, which is just not so. Bill Clinton introduced the Economic Stimulus Package-Republicans hate stimulus-which resulted in a surge of Full Time jobs, which therefore resulted in a surge of Federal revenue resulting from the income taxes paid from the people who got those Full Time jobs. This extra Federal revenue cut the deficit. That's how the deficit got cut.

Once Clinton and the Democrats got the ball rolling in the right direction, the Republicans tried to take credit for getting rid of the deficit even though President Clinton's Economic Stimulus Package was passed over Republican opposition, and the first full year of Republican "deficit cutting", (the Welfare Reform Bill), didn't even take full effect until 1998, when the deficit was already history.

Typical Republican strategy: Fight the Democrat all the way, lose, then when the Democrat turns out to be right, try to grab the credit.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2017 12:43 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
Did...did he really just say that?!

Yes, McGentrix, I did post that the Democrats did the heavy lifting in deficit reduction starting with Clinton's first year in1993, and the chart shows that is correct.

http://i68.tinypic.com/21xuvp.jpg

Your response was typical. Instead of facts, you post how shocked you are that I would dare to challenge Republican economic orthodoxy and try to pretend that you require the swift administration of smelling salts to keep from lapsing into a coma.

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2017 04:21 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Republicans are under the delusion that deficit cutting creates jobs, which is just not so.

The economy was pretty good after Newt forced Clinton to balance the budget.


Blickers wrote:
Bill Clinton introduced the Economic Stimulus Package-Republicans hate stimulus-which resulted in a surge of Full Time jobs, which therefore resulted in a surge of Federal revenue resulting from the income taxes paid from the people who got those Full Time jobs. This extra Federal revenue cut the deficit. That's how the deficit got cut.

The Democrats only cut the deficit. It took Newt to eliminate the deficit.


Blickers wrote:
Once Clinton and the Democrats got the ball rolling in the right direction, the Republicans tried to take credit for getting rid of the deficit even though President Clinton's Economic Stimulus Package was passed over Republican opposition, and the first full year of Republican "deficit cutting", (the Welfare Reform Bill), didn't even take full effect until 1998, when the deficit was already history.

The Republican budget fights started when Newt became speaker in 1995. That is when Newt's influence began improving the economy.


Blickers wrote:
Typical Republican strategy: Fight the Democrat all the way, lose, then when the Democrat turns out to be right, try to grab the credit.

Actually that is what you are doing. The Democrats fought Newt bitterly when he tried to cut spending. And now you are trying to give the Democrats credit for what Newt achieved.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2017 06:13 pm
@oralloy,
A dandy example of oralloy's "facts".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Flynn's in big doo doo - Discussion by cicerone imposter
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2020 at 10:01:38