The Trump Presidency

Mark Knoller
@markknoller
At briefing, @PressSec says Pres Trump not withdrawing Obama/wiretap charge, despite FBI Dir. Comey saying no info to support it.
 
So it looks like the last Democratic lifeline is James Comey.

That hasn't turned out disastrously in the past or anything.
 
Hawk said:
What we do know is that both individuals continued to quietly work for the campaign even after being 'fired'. I think that speaks loudly, but what do I know?

I called the investigation (which actually began under a Democratic DOJ - but let's continue to misrepresent objective truths) a sham, with justifiable cause. It hasn't produced any convictions or presented evidence of any variety which would indicate the influence that Russia supposedly wielded over our electoral process was in any way a game changer. Ascertaining the extent to which Russia was involved in trying to manipulate voters is absolutely worthy of continued investigation, even as it pertains to the Trump White House, but you are grievously mistaken (and I think you know this) if you believe with any measure of sincerity that simply because the Director of the FBI (who was reportedly pissed at Trump's wiretap comments and personally demanded this public hearing [but that's neither here or nor there]) iterated that an investigation was ongoing there is collusion yet to be magically unearthed.

For all intents and purposes the Russian conspiracy theory died today. You will obviously continue to propagate a different version of the reality, but if there was something ... today might have been the day where it ceased being the something we didn't know anything about.
Click to expand...

Seems like that's premature when the investigation is still ongoing.

Your POV was that "the Russia angle is exhausted." It's pretty obviously not exhausted.

Your position is that Russian involvement in the election = Obama birtherism is noted.

Your conclusion that the matter is closed doesn't seem to be supported by the facts.

Seems like that has been directly refuted by testimony today.
 
This is not about (D) and (R)

at what point do you set that aside?
The election is over - Trump won the electoral college and (R) won both houses - (D) is so minority they can't see up.
Dem and Repub won't be an issue until the 2018 bru ha ha

Are you comfortable with politicians involving foreign entities to influence elections?
Would you be comfortable with a candidate in say, New Hampshire siding with Canada on a border dispute then accepting/conspiring Canadian help in an election.

Texas -New Mexoco etc conspiring with Mexico to over turn a USA policy?

Are you alright with Russia wiretapping unfavorable Congress people then supplying their opponent w with damaging information with a promise of adopting their wishes?

This is not about partisan politics. I feel sorry if you think that
 
Julio3000 said:
Seems like that's premature when the investigation is still ongoing.

Your POV was that "the Russia angle is exhausted." It's pretty obviously not exhausted.

Your position is that Russian involvement in the election = Obama birtherism is noted.

Your conclusion that the matter is closed doesn't seem to be supported by the facts.

Seems like that has been directly refuted by testimony today.
Click to expand...

You love misrepresenting my words for dramatic effect.

- I said that the Russian conspiracy as it relates to the Trump administration is dead.
- I said that treating Roger Stone's tweets to Guccifer, or the infamous Manafort ledger, as serious examples of collusion was akin to the quality of evidences presented during the public phase of the birtherism movement.

I see that you want to pat yourself on the back for deducing that the investigation is ongoing ... because the FBI director said it was. And I get that, I suppose, because it's the simplest conclusion to take away from today.

The FBI director also refused to testify as to whether or not he was investigating a crime.

But that's irrelevant, apparently, because Comey publicly announced a probe that we all already knew had been in existence for the past 9 months.
 
sturg33 said:
I think it's sad that you would be OK with stealing from someone... but I at least appreciate you willing to admit... as opposed to the other cowards on this board
Click to expand...

To be clear: I don't think taxation is theft. But if I were living in abject poverty, I'd also definitely go Robin Hood as hell to feed my hypothetical children. Jean Valjean is the hero, not Inspector Javert.
 
Hawk said:
You love misrepresenting my words for dramatic effect.

- I said that the Russian conspiracy as it relates to the Trump administration is dead.

- I said that treating Roger Stone's tweets to Guccifer, or the infamous Manafort ledger, as serious examples of collusion was akin to the quality of evidences presented during the public phase of the birtherism movement.

I see that you want to pat yourself on the back for deducing that the investigation is ongoing ... because the FBI director said it was. And I get that, I suppose, because it's the simplest conclusion to take away from today.

The FBI director also refused to testify as to whether or not he was investigating a crime.

But that's irrelevant, apparently, because Comey publicly announced a probe that we all already knew had been in existence for the past 9 months.
Click to expand...

- I said that the Russian conspiracy as it relates to the Trump administration is dead.

So is it? Unless you're counting on splitting hairs about the campaign and the administration. Simple question: is it dead?

- I said that treating Roger Stone's tweets to Guccifer, or the infamous Manafort ledger, as serious examples of collusion was akin to the quality of evidences presented during the public phase of the birtherism movement.

So Roger Stone's admitted contacts with a purported GRU op is equivalent to the "evidence" that Obama was born in Kenya? I'm not sure I'm misrepresenting your words here. What birther information reached that level of confirmation?
 
Per Sean Spicer, former campaign manager Manafort had a "limited role in the campaign" and Mike Flynn was just some guy who wasn't paid by the campaign, despite being joined at the hip to Trump for months and having been given a crucial NatSec position in the administration.

That doesn't sound suspicious at all.
 
sturg33 said:
Let's go down this path.

Julio - humor me if you don't mind.

Let's all assume Russia is proven in hacking and stealing the emails.

1. What do we do about that?

2. Do we care at all about what was exposed - which supposedly was damning enough to "influence the election"

3. I'm curious as to your punishment for question 1... as I'm sure you'd agree the US has had its hand in multiple foreign elections
Click to expand...

^
 
jpx7 said:
Both are inane, manufactured controversies designed to be used a cudgels.
Click to expand...

Remains to be seen for two reasons. First is if there is fire with the smoke and secondly if no fire is found will Trump detractors drag this out for 4 or 5 years.

Both are ifs
 
57Brave said:
Remains to be seen for two reasons. First is if there is fire with the smoke and secondly if no fire is found will Trump detractors drag this out for 4 or 5 years.

Both are ifs
Click to expand...

I can't answer for the first clause, but the second "if" is a fait accompli.
 
sturg33 said:
^
Click to expand...

1. What I would assume would be further economic sanctions against institutions and individuals, which would seem to be more than warranted. You disagree?

2. Is irrelevant, is it not?

3. Seems a silly attempt to change the subject.
 
Julio3000 said:
1. What I would assume would be further economic sanctions against institutions and individuals, which would seem to be more than warranted. You disagree?

2. Is irrelevant, is it not?

3. Seems a silly attempt to change the subject.
Click to expand...

1. More sanctions... bc that has worked so far?

2. No... if the information was so damning, why aren't we discussing it? If it wasn't damning, then Russia didn't interfere (effectively)

3. So just to set the record, you're cool with the US doing the exact same thing to other countries, but lose your **** if someone returns the favor?

I don't know if you've ever listened to a Putin speech, but one thing he does nail consistently is the hypocrisy of the US.

Now I'll step aside as John McCain, 57, and goldy accuse of me working for the kremlin
 
sturg33 said:
1. More sanctions... bc that has worked so far?

2. No... if the information was so damning, why aren't we discussing it? If it wasn't damning, then Russia didn't interfere (effectively)

3. So just to set the record, you're cool with the US doing the exact same thing to other countries, but lose your **** if someone returns the favor?

I don't know if you've ever listened to a Putin speech, but one thing he does nail consistently is the hypocrisy of the US.

Now I'll step aside as John McCain, 57, and goldy accuse of me working for the kremlin
Click to expand...

Christ.

The post-Crimea sanctions have been effective.

US hypocrisy is one thing. As 50 has said, an inside view into sausage-makers making sausage is hardly revelatory. The idea that you would somehow say that evidence of same coming from Vladimir Putin is somehow meaningful is really too dopey to be believed.

The US record in interfering in democratic elections in Latin America, Iran, and elsewhere is in the past half-century is self-evident. The existence of the current Iranian regime and a lot of the anti-American governments in Latin America are a direct result of it. I'm about he last person on this board you should take the task on that subject. The fact that you're using same to confer legitimacy on a reprehensible mafia state is your problem.

Historical American ****ery in the world doesn't make Putinism less horrid.
 
Donna Brazile fed a debate question to HRCs campaign which proves that America is hypocritical and no better than a banana republic, says the guy who has systematically eradicated the free press and prosecuted or eliminated his political oppposition while stealing billions of dollars from the state.

Super argument.
 
Julio3000 said:
Christ.

The post-Crimea sanctions have been effective.

US hypocrisy is one thing. As 50 has said, an inside view into sausage-makers making sausage is hardly revelatory. The idea that you would somehow say that evidence of same coming from Vladimir Putin is somehow meaningful is really too dopey to be believed.

The US record in interfering in democratic elections in Latin America, Iran, and elsewhere is in the past half-century is self-evident. The existence of the current Iranian regime and a lot of the anti-American governments in Latin America are a direct result of it. I'm about he last person on this board you should take the task on that subject. The fact that you're using same to confer legitimacy on a reprehensible mafia state is your problem.

Historical American ****ery in the world doesn't make Putinism less horrid.
Click to expand...

The sanctions were so effective that they took over our election process, and you're response to... sanction them?

I think the only natural next step is some sort of war... which, I'm just guessing here, is something a lot of people in the congress would welcome

You keep glancing over the content. You can't have it both ways. If they successfully undermined our election, then the information they exposed must be really really bad. But you're not interested in that information. That's no better than blaming Snowden for the US breaking the law and spying on millions of Americans.

I'm certain you're aware of the US involvement in other elections. What's confusing to me is why we're cool with that, but cry foul when someone does it back. (now feel free to post how you're not cool with it, but don't think it's relevant to your current hissy fit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top