President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Water John

That Russian Amb in Washington looks a bit unhealthy and over weight. Might just keel over as well.

It gives a whole new meaning to saying the trail of evidence had run cold.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Very dangerous, something massive, it's over for Trump, hysteria. If you say it enough you probably start to believe it. Personally after 14 months of hearing it without any substance I got tired of it.

Perhaps, and now this might sound insane, the reason Trump is attacking Obama is because people connected to Obama are leaking sensitive details to the press trying to undermine his administration. Rachel Maddow got her hands on a DHS leak yesterday.

I might have gone overboard making such a wild and crazy observation. When it all starts to come out, which inevitably it will, I fear you'll still be holding the belief of some huge Russia conspiracy. On the flip side, if new evidence does come to light showing actual collusion, I'll eat my words, but right now there is nothing after all the investigations and cries of foul play.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/837816633309569024

Do you believe that there WASNT a FISA warrant on Donald Trump even though Trump himself has leaked this? As I've pointed out the FISA judge needs PROBABLE CAUSE to issue the warrant. Do you get this? Is this not substance?

Obama did nothing illegal in moving Intel to safe places in U.S. government. If the incoming PEOTUS was suspected of treason he would have not have been doing his job if he did otherwise.

Oh yes, another part of that leak was that British and Dutch intelligence had passed over a significant amount of Intel of Trump associates communicating with Russian Goveenment officials.

Hank Scorpio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-diplomats-deaths-theories-putin-kremlin-a7602201.html

Six Russian Ambassadors have died since Trump's election in November, of which four were mentioned in the Steele Dossier.

Given all of the stuff that's gone on between Trump, Putin and their associates, does anyone still actually think this is a bunch of baloney?

I mean, if people (well, Trump supporters) are going to go wild after Trump's crazy tweets this morning, which have 0 evidence to back them up, then how can they just pass off this carry-on as nonsense? It just baffles me how deluded some people can be.

When the "establishment", the media, the Intel agencies, the Democrats, and parts of the GOP want nothing more than to nail Trump, they've been unable to provide a shred of evidence showing Russian collusion.

What's the most likely explanation, either Trump is some kind of mastermind or that there's nothing to the story? The Intel agencies have access to everything, emails, phonecalls, financial records, yet nothing has come out showing any collusion. Every FBI investigation has come up blank.

The best thing they could come up with was the Pussygate video.

KingBrian2

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is no foreign policy ban on talking to Russia. As part of government business the ambassador etc would talk to each other.

Pelosi was clearly at a meeting with the Russians. Nothing inherently wrong in that.

What Sessions did was to lie, under oath. He volunterred (as Franken didn't actually ask about him) false information. How many times he met, what they talked about etc is not the issue.

Flynn admitted that he talked to the Ambassador about sanctions, which is against the law in the US. And again, it was not even that he called the ambassador, we all knew that weeks ago. But he lied about it to Pence.

So trying to bring in some random photos (Schumer is from 2003, nearly 14 years ago!) is pretty pathetic and for anybody to run with the as any sort of defence is absurd.

Trump and his supporters keep going on about the democrats and the leftist snowflakes needing to accept the election result and get on with it. It seems to me that Trump and his supporters are still stuck trying to fight the election. The media and Democrat have moved on and are busy doing their job, holding the WH to account.

The Democrats are being completely partisan throughout this process. Why no investigation into the whole election including donations to the Clinton campaign team? No answer on that been provided. This investigation into Trump appears very one sided. The Democrats are trying to rerun the election in Congress instead of getting on with supporting the President on major international and national projects.

The American taxpayers don't want to see their public representatives wasting time dragging out a process. The voters will get frustrated and angry so if the Dems are serious about combating corruption than nobody should be excluded. Bring back Obama and Clinton and have them testify that they received no kickbacks or financial help from foreign counterparts.

The way i see it we could have had dozens of non-Americans interfering in US elections and hacking the Democrats. No reason to start implicating Russia as being the chief hacker in all this. China, Iran or Europeans could very well have been involved in these alleged conspiracies to hack the US. It makes no sense from an outsider to regard Russia as the architect of the collapse of the DNC.

Water John

I think you are a bit behind the curve here Brian. Most accept Russia was involved in the election, up to its neck.
The question is, was their tic tacking with the Trump campaign?

Hank Scorpio

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Democrats are being completely partisan throughout this process. Why no investigation into the whole election including donations to the Clinton campaign team. This investigation into Trump appears very one sided. The Democrats are trying to rerun the election in Congress instead of getting on with supporting the President on major international and national projects. The American taxpayers don't want to see their public representatives wasting time dragging out a process. If the Dems are serious about combating corruption than nobody should be off the table. Bring back Obama and Clinton and have them testify that they received no kickbacks or financial help from foreign counterparts. The way i see it we could have had dozens of non-Americans interfering in US elections and hacking the Democrats. No reason to start implicating Russia as being the chief hacker in all this.

It's completely one sided and all the double standards are clear to see. Anything with the word Russia connected to it has become some sort of forbidden fruit to attack people with. Trump is being accused of colluding with a Foreign Government during the election cycle, while there's evidence the Clinton campaign were colluding and organising secret meetings with the Chinese during the campaign but nobody in the media bats an eyelid at it.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/35743 Thursday, January 7, 2016 11:59 AM

"Guys - Chinese Ambassador Cui invited me over to the residence Tuesday for
a coffee and to make a request. He wants to have an informal, private, off
the record get together with a few of us to discuss the next year and the
current state of US-China affairs."

MightyMandarin

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

When the "establishment", the media, the Intel agencies, the Democrats, and parts of the GOP want nothing more than to nail Trump, they've been unable to provide a shred of evidence showing Russian collusion.

What's the most likely explanation, either Trump is some kind of mastermind or that there's nothing to the story? The Intel agencies have access to everything, emails, phonecalls, financial records, yet nothing has come out showing any collusion. Every FBI investigation has come up blank.

The best thing they could come up with was the Pussygate video.

If there's nothing there, then why does Trump's team make lie after lie regarding their relationships with Russian reprsentatives?

Michael Flynn said he never met with them, then said he did but nothing about sanctions was discussed, which was also proved to be a lie. Trump's team claimed they never knew, yet Sally Yates and the DOJ claimed they informed them weeks before, after which Flynn suddenly got the boot.

Sessions was guilty of the same thing; he said he never met with any Russians during the campaign, which was a lie.

This is only in relation to the Russia story, there's countless examples of Trump, Conway and Spicer spreading complete disinformation and bull****.

I just don't get why you believe these people, yet any sort of MSM media source is bs. Why choose one over the other? What makes Trump and his team more trustworthy than CNN or the NYT?

Hank Scorpio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

If there's nothing there, then why does Trump's team make lie after lie regarding their relationships with Russian reprsentatives?

Michael Flynn said he never met with them, then said he did but nothing about sanctions was discussed, which was also proved to be a lie. Trump's team claimed they never knew, yet Sally Yates and the DOJ claimed they informed them weeks before, after which Flynn suddenly got the boot.

Sessions was guilty of the same thing; he said he never met with any Russians during the campaign, which was a lie.

This is only in relation to the Russia story, there's countless examples of Trump, Conway and Spicer spreading complete disinformation and bull****.

I just don't get why you believe these people, yet any sort of MSM media source is bs. Why choose one over the other? What makes Trump and his team more trustworthy than CNN or the NYT?

Look at the full context in which Sessions was asked, it was aimed towards CNN's accusations of the dossier and the "constant back and fourth" between Trump surrogates and the Russian Government. He met with dozens of ambassadors, in fact one of the meetings he had with the Russian one was set up by the Obama state department. It's a nothing story but was blown out of proportion to try and sabotage Sessions.

I didn't say I believe everything they say, what I believe is if there was truth to the allegations with everyone wanting to nail him, something would have come out showing collusion. It's not illegal to talk to the Russians, collusion is the problem and nothing there to back it up. The FBI cleared the Flynn calls of any wrongdoing, so that theory is another dead end. He calls multiple ambassadors as the incoming national security adviser, but because one of them was Russia it was made into some crazy exaggerated story.

B_Wayne

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's completely one sided and all the double standards are clear to see. Anything with the word Russia connected to it has become some sort of forbidden fruit to attack people with. Trump is being accused of colluding with a Foreign Government during the election cycle, while there's evidence the Clinton campaign were colluding and organising secret meetings with the Chinese during the campaign but nobody in the media bats an eyelid at it.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/35743 Thursday, January 7, 2016 11:59 AM

"Guys - Chinese Ambassador Cui invited me over to the residence Tuesday for
a coffee and to make a request. He wants to have an informal, private, off
the record get together with a few of us to discuss the next year and the
current state of US-China affairs."

The difference is, we have people who have gone before Congress and claimed never to have met with the Russians. This has been proven to be untrue on numerous occasions. The amount of lies that you seem to accept because it's Trump... You just pull a "But Hillary" at every opportunity.

MightyMandarin

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Look at the full context in which Sessions was asked, it was aimed towards CNN's accusations of the dossier and the "constant back and fourth" between Trump surrogates and the Russian Government. He met with dozens of ambassadors, in fact one of the meetings he had with the Russian one was set up by the Obama state department. It's a nothing story but was blown out of proportion to try and sabotage Sessions.

I didn't say I believe everything they say, what I believe is if there was truth to the allegations with everyone wanting to nail him, something would have come out showing collusion. It's not illegal to talk to the Russians, collusion is the problem and nothing there to back it up. The FBI cleared the Flynn calls of any wrongdoing, so that theory is another dead end.

You didn't answer my question, if there's nothing to hide, why are they persistently lying about their relationship?

Information may or may not be made public, but a sure sign of identifying someone or a group of people with something to hide is when they're persistently caught lying about it. Does it not even warrant questioning the fact that they're so 'nothing to see here folks' about it?

Igotadose

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Look at the full context in which Sessions was asked, it was aimed towards CNN's accusations of the dossier and the "constant back and fourth"

Sessions perjured himself before the confirmation committee. Period. You're projecting your theories as to what the committee was after - that's a deflection. Sessions "probably" used legally-weasely-enough language to avoid an outright perjury charge since he tied it to 'campaign advice' or something like that. It's close though.

The media's yet to be wrong about Sessions and what he said and did. He's now recused himself, personally I think he survives as AG. Trump's doing his best to deflect the media attention with his latest fantasy-land tweet about wiretaps and nonsense about Democrats meeting with Kislyak - the difference being that the Democrats aren't denying it.

Face it, Trump's just one lie after another including some invented out of whole cloth (that Friday night in Sweden comes to mind, and apparently the wiretap nonsense came from Breitbart mis-reporting some stuff from Mark Levin, again Trump just listening to the last guy who'll tell him something.)

Trump's really a global embarrassment and a shame on the GOP forever.

Hank Scorpio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

You didn't answer my question, if there's nothing to hide, why are they persistently lying about their relationship?

Information may or may not be made public, but a sure sign of identifying someone or a group of people with something to hide is when they're persistently caught lying about it. Does it not even warrant questioning the fact that they're so 'nothing to see here folks' about it?

If your definition of lying is based on something like the Sessions "Scandal", we're going to have a hard time agreeing.

Hank Scorpio

Igotadose wrote: »

Sessions perjured himself before the confirmation committee. Period.

Face it, Trump's just one lie after another including some invented out of whole cloth (that Friday night in Sweden comes to mind, and apparently the wiretap nonsense came from Breitbart mis-reporting some stuff from Mark Levin, again Trump just listening to the last guy who'll tell him something.)

Trump's really a global embarrassment and a shame on the GOP forever.

Context. Isn't it public knowledge in his work capacity he met with foreign ambassadors. The question was clearly aimed towards the dossier and the new allegations that were published in CNN. Sorry but I'm not happy to see a man crucified and destroyed over such meaningless pedantic attacks.

MightyMandarin

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If your definition of lying is based on something like the Sessions "Scandal", we're going to have a hard time agreeing.

I didn't call it a scandal, and it wasn't just Sessions I mentioned either; Flynn was even more persistent with his lying. The fact is Sessions said something involving himself (under Oath btw) which was not true.

I'm not looking for you to agree, I'm looking for you to answer my question. Are you going to answer it?

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Just came across the wiretapping story on Drudge, this is going to be a major scandal.

Was there another DHS leak and Rachel Maddow got hold of it somehow?

A hahaha. You are the first to demand complete and irrefutable evidence of anything anti Trump. Why the sudden change of tune?

As Trump said you can make anything up with condigential sources...

How quick can you say Trump is fake news?

Water John

Sessions has good history in cruxifying and destroying opponents.
I wouldn't have a lot of sympathy for him. Long time coming.

Hank Scorpio

B_Wayne wrote: »

The difference is, we have people who have gone before Congress and claimed never to have met with the Russians. This has been proven to be untrue on numerous occasions. The amount of lies that you seem to accept because it's Trump... You just pull a "But Hillary" at every opportunity.

Pointing out the utter hypocrisy and double standards is a "But Hillary"?

If the standard of lying about some secret relationship with Russia is what Sessions was asked then the Dems will need to come up with better. Context is everything, but it doesn't seem to matter when the only goal is try and destroy a man. There was nothing sinister or underhanded in his reply IMO. He met with the Russian ambassador in his role as a senator, not as a Trump surrogate.

Franken: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, ‘Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say quote, ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’

"Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

Water John

O'Bama denies ordering tapping of any US citizen.

DT now, put up or withdraw the accusation.

Igotadose

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Context. Isn't it public knowledge in his work capacity he met with foreign ambassadors. The question was clearly aimed towards the dossier and the new allegations that were published in CNN. Sorry but I'm not happy to see a man crucified and destroyed over such meaningless pedantic attacks.

---
This was a written questionnaire sent to Sessions as part of the confirmation process:
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked: "Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"

Sessions responded, in total: "No."
---
How is Senator Franken's question pedantic, or Senator Leahy's? "Did you meet with the Russians" Doesn't matter what the context is, its a simple enough question. Sessions blew it, and this is US politics. Like I said, I think he outlasts it because of the weasle-legalese 'they asked me about one case but not the other where i met the Russians so I'm o.k. here.' I mean, really. He met with the Russians, and we've only got his word he didn't say anything about the campaign/Trump/Trump's inner circle, etc.

Oh, and McCain's looking for help from the UK to talk to the guy that compiled the dossier; now that'll be entertaining should it come to fruition...

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

A hahaha. You are the first to demand complete and irrefutable evidence of anything anti Trump. Why the sudden change of tune?

As Trump said you can make anything up with condigential sources...

How quick can you say Trump is fake news?

And where did I say Trump shouldn't provide proof of his allegations? He should.

Fact is, there's not a shred of evidence linking Trump to Russian collusion despite all the hysteria over the past 6 or 7 months.

Hank Scorpio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I didn't call it a scandal, and it wasn't just Sessions I mentioned either; Flynn was even more persistent with his lying. The fact is Sessions said something involving himself (under Oath btw) which was not true.

I'm not looking for you to agree, I'm looking for you to answer my question. Are you going to answer it?

I don't believe Sessions purposely lied, or that there was intent to deceive when past meetings were public knowledge. Again, context of the question.

Pence repeated something Flynn said. If there was something sinister about the phone call the FBI wouldn't have cleared him.

BabyCheeses

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Just came across the wiretapping story on Drudge, this is going to be a major scandal.

Was there another DHS leak and Rachel Maddow got hold of it somehow?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

And where did I say Trump shouldn't provide proof of his allegations? He should.

Fact is, there's not a shred of evidence linking Trump to Russian collusion despite all the hysteria over the past 6 or 7 months.

Right....

Russia? Nothing there.

TRUMP SAID HE WAS WIRE TAPPED THIS IS HUGE!

Hank Scorpio

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Right....

Russia? Nothing there.

TRUMP SAID HE WAS WIRE TAPPED THIS IS HUGE!

Correct.

BabyCheeses

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Correct.

But Trump going on a tweet tirade about wire tapping is going to be a major scandal.

This was expected anyway.

Professor Moriarty

Obama officially denies Trump's claim calling it "false". I'm looking forward to Trump proving his claim.

As an aside, another Trump lie. Hard to keep up with all of The Donald's lies.

BabyCheeses

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Obama officially denies Trump's claim calling it "false". I'm looking forward to Trump proving his claim.

As an aside, another Trump lie. Hard to keep up with all of The Donald's lies.

I'm sure other Trump supporters will be as skeptical of this as they are about anti Trump stories.


Or at least the smarter ones will pretend

Professor Moriarty

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I'm sure other Trump supporters will be as skeptical of this as they are about anti Trump stories.


Or at least the smarter ones will pretend

But, but, a White House spokesperson confirmed it? But that would mean that the White House is spreading fake news? Say it ain't so.

BabyCheeses

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But, but, a White House spokesperson confirmed it? But that would mean that the White House is spreading fake news? Say it ain't so.

Maybe it's just the information Trump was given? We know somebody was feeding him false info before. Might have happened again.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Context. Isn't it public knowledge in his work capacity he met with foreign ambassadors. The question was clearly aimed towards the dossier and the new allegations that were published in CNN. Sorry but I'm not happy to see a man crucified and destroyed over such meaningless pedantic attacks.

None of the other 26 members of his committee had met with the ambassador. In fact no one from that committee has had a meeting him for 10 years. Why are you saying the opposite is public knowledge? Why are you deliberately misleading us?

The AG swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He claimed he hadn't met any Russians when he had. He lied under oath which is an imprisonable felony.

Even his mitigation for lying doesn't hold any water as he admits he may have discussed the campaign.

This is a serious crime and he should be tried and jailed.

Professor Moriarty

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Maybe it's just the information Trump was given? We know somebody was feeding him false info before. Might have happened again.

Yeah it seems to have happened to him quite a lot. Almost everything he says turns out to be untrue. Seems very unfair to me. He should look into it.