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

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

1. We can tell wikileaks is biased as they are specifically timing their releases for this reason.

2. Irrelevant. As you say it should all be public knowledge. I feel the US should not interfere in elections abroad but also feel their own elections should not have a pawn for another regime involved in them (this is different to say if Trump simply gets on well with Putin and dI'd not actively work with him).

3. The media is a powerful tool to keep the administration in line and have been vital in terms of putting pressure on the white house. This has resulted in them releasing the info that Flynn lied about Russian income from them and has helped remove Flynn, Stone and Manafort. They can't simply wait for the results of the investigation as investigative journalists are part of it. Second of all the fact that the investigation of such a serious mater is under way into people making such important decisions should be public knowledge so they can make informed decisions. Similarly for the lies his team has told about Russian connections.

Both myself and Leroy's (at least) have disagreed with demfad in terms of how far the poster goes with accusations but we can discuss their existence and we can see there are severe issues with the Nunes investigation. If we can't trust the investigation I figure better safe than sorry in terms of white house officials secretly working with a foreign government for their own ends.

Regarding your point no. 1 above, this bears repeating. According to the office that oversees the FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA etc., the following is true:

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Among other things, Russian intelligence services gained access to Democratic National Committee computers for nearly a year, from July 2015 to June 2016, and released hacked material to WikiLeaks and other media outlets to help Trump's election.

Water John

Yes, Russia meddled in the US election in favour of DT.
They hacked info, emails and databases of DNC.

DT's people, had multiple contacts with Russia. Contacts they are constantly denying or when found casting that person adrift.

The server in Trump Tower links DT's people with the Russians in some way.
Each side were the only two accessing the server.

Only one step more to be verified, was there collusion?

Not sure any bookie looking at the above, would give you any odds.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Yes, Russia meddled in the US election in favour of DT.
They hacked info, emails and databases of DNC.

DT's people, had multiple contacts with Russia. Contacts they are constantly denying or when found casting that person adrift.

The server in Trump Tower links DT's people with the Russians in some way.
Each side were the only two accessing the server.

Only one step more to be verified, was there collusion?

Not sure any bookie looking at the above, would give you any odds.

He's odds on, 4/5 with Ladbrokes, to be impeached or resign.

MightyMandarin

Water John wrote: »

Yes, Russia meddled in the US election in favour of DT.
They hacked info, emails and databases of DNC.

DT's people, had multiple contacts with Russia. Contacts they are constantly denying or when found casting that person adrift.

The server in Trump Tower links DT's people with the Russians in some way.
Each side were the only two accessing the server.

Only one step more to be verified, was there collusion?

Not sure any bookie looking at the above, would give you any odds.

I wonder how long it'll be before someone high up in the circles ends up dead. We've already seen a few Russian ambassadors die in mysterious circumstances, FSB agents end up shot in the head or disappeared, and some of them like Page look like nervous wrecks anytime they talk in public.

Just listen to the ex-FBI agent who testified last week in Congress and "follow the trail of dead russians".

InTheTrees

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Quoting you directly.



Is there any actual evidence that Russia hacked the elections?

Is there any actual evidence Trump colluded with Russia?

You're confusing a "trial" with an "investigation".

The evidence gets produced at the conclusion of the investigation.

This constant demand for "actual evidence" is premature.

Mr.Micro

InTheTrees wrote: »

You're confusing a "trial" with an "investigation".

The evidence gets produced at the conclusion of the investigation.

This constant demand for "actual evidence" is premature.

The facts are nothing, a contradiction I know, until it's all official. It may never get to a stage where charges are laid. Until then it's all chatter IMO. Collusion with the Russians might well be true, but like much in politics, until it's official, it never happened.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

InTheTrees wrote: »

You're confusing a "trial" with an "investigation".

The evidence gets produced at the conclusion of the investigation.

This constant demand for "actual evidence" is premature.

Most people here are confusing allegations made from within certain parts of the US government with facts. The CIA and the like have a very very very long history of lying, fabrication and dishonesty. They will literally say whatever they want publicly to suit their own agenda.

I'm willing to keep an open mind on where the actual truth is on the issue. But I will not blindly accept anything without strong evidence.

There has been so many things leaked over the last year that I think if there was something concrete to pin on Trump, then it would already be in the public domain.

Considering so many of Trump's associates have had their conversations listened to by the NSA, they should have categorical proof that Trump is in bed with Putin.

MightyMandarin

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The facts are nothing, a contradiction I know, until it's all official. It may never get to a stage where charges are laid. Until then it's all chatter IMO. Collusion with the Russians might well be true, but like much in politics, until it's official, it never happened.

The problem here though is that Trump and his team are doing everything possible to make the investigation either stop or be biased in his favour, and there's only one reason why they are doing this.

Nunes is a crook and has been caught red handed acting as a messenger for Trump "delivering" info to the White House which had been given to him days before by....the White House. The whole thing stinks as does the Flynn debacle, Prince's back channel in the Seychelles and his ties to Trump via 'aul Betsy, the myriad of conflicts of interest and ethics issues involving Trump, his associates and his family.

Whatever about 100% proof, if people genuinely don't think there's something there, they're completely deluded imo. There's just so many lies, backtracks, scapegoating and cover-ups for there not to be.

InTheTrees

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Most people here are confusing allegations made from within certain parts of the US government with facts. The CIA and the like have a very very very long history of lying, fabrication and dishonesty. They will literally say whatever they want publicly to suit their own agenda.

Thats why at the conclusion of the Investigation there would be charges made against anyone guilty followed by a trial where the accused gets to present their side.

InTheTrees

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Most people here are confusing allegations made from within certain parts of the US government with facts.

Allegations? Do you mean leaks?

Or do you mean statements made by members of the house intelligence committee?

RobertKK

Steve Bannon has been removed from the National Security Council.

Billy86

"Obviously there’s been discussion of Steve Bannon, who played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time"

- Sean Spicer, very near future.

Itssoeasy

Billy86 wrote: »

"Obviously there’s been discussion of Steve Bannon, who played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time"

- Sean Spicer, very near future.

can you smell that billy ? It's that familiar aroma from the trump administration of utter bull****. Btw I know you saying that's what Sean spicer might say, but its seems a daily occurrence.

CMOTDibbler

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Most people here are confusing allegations made from within certain parts of the US government with facts. The CIA and the like have a very very very long history of lying, fabrication and dishonesty. They will literally say whatever they want publicly to suit their own agenda.

I'm willing to keep an open mind on where the actual truth is on the issue. But I will not blindly accept anything without strong evidence.

Eminently reasonable standpoint. Except you said this:

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Assange may have had an issue with Clinton personally as she wanted him dead,

Billy86

Itssoeasy wrote: »

can you smell that billy ? It's that familiar aroma from the trump administration of utter bull****. Btw I know you saying that's what Sean spicer might say, but its seems a daily occurrence.

Just replace the words "Steve" with "Paul" and "Bannon" with "Manafort".


Apparently the line trotted out is that he was only in the role to look over Mike Flynn, which not only is clearly even more bull**** as Flynn resigned/was fired something like two full months ago after only being in the spot for 2-3 weeks, but also says that they knew he had nefarious dealings before they appointed him to the spot.

Itssoeasy

I'm sure his name has come up but this Roger stone lad just doesn't care does he ? He's certainly not shy and lacking confidence anyway.

Yourself isit

Given the US belligerent attitude to the latest "chemical attacks" and the demotion of bannon it looks like the neo conservatives are taking control back.

Expect to hear how great a statesman trump is in a few months.

Mr.Micro

RobertKK wrote: »

Steve Bannon has been removed from the National Security Council.

Does that mean that Trump's team are falling out?

Billy86

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Does that mean that Trump's team are falling out?

When you've got Roger Stone (a key member of 'Team Trump') accusing Trump's son in law (also one of the main members of 'Team Trump) of spreading leaks, I don't see any other conclusion. And that's before bringing up the whole Mike Flynn mess, who again was a member of 'Team Trump'.

They've been falling apart for a few weeks now.

aloyisious

RTE News saying HR McMaster, the new NSA to the President is behind the removal.

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

RTE News saying HR McMaster, the new NSA to the President is behind the removal.

Yeah your man McMaster seems like some operator alright. Well I like him even more as bannon had no business being in that position.

Yourself isit

aloyisious wrote: »

RTE News saying HR McMaster, the new NSA to the President is behind the removal.

Yeh. Looks like the old guard are back. This "warrior" is a full on member of the neoconwar party.

Great.

Really Interested

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yeh. Looks like the old guard are back. This "warrior" is a full on member of the neoconwar party.

Great.

But I thought that by electing Trump no neocon values.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Eminently reasonable standpoint. Except you said this:

Think you're being quite disingenuous to me with that post. I specifically stated may. The words you quoted from my post were also contained within a sentence where I said might/may 5 times, and my next sentence just after it was "We just don't know though, as of now there is no hard evidence to back anyone's claim."

If you're going to quote me, be fair and at least quote the full sentence.

Kitsunegari

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Most people here are confusing allegations made from within certain parts of the US government with facts. The CIA and the like have a very very very long history of lying, fabrication and dishonesty. They will literally say whatever they want publicly to suit their own agenda.

I'm willing to keep an open mind on where the actual truth is on the issue. But I will not blindly accept anything without strong evidence.

There has been so many things leaked over the last year that I think if there was something concrete to pin on Trump, then it would already be in the public domain.

Considering so many of Trump's associates have had their conversations listened to by the NSA, they should have categorical proof that Trump is in bed with Putin.

Actually you're wrong. Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman has said categorically that there is no evidence of any American committing any wrongdoing as a result of the investigation and it's likely that the findings will be against Russia and not an American.

People on here pining for Trump to be removed from office aren't going to get that result from this investigation. It'll be interesting to see what comes of Mike Flynn and his revelations.

CMOTDibbler

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Think you're being quite disingenuous to me with that post. I specifically stated may. The words you quoted from my post were also contained within a sentence where I said might/may 5 times, and my next sentence just after it was "We just don't know though, as of now there is no hard evidence to back anyone's claim."

If you're going to quote me, be fair and at least quote the full sentence.

You said he 'may' have had an issue with her. Ok, so he might not.

But you followed that with "as she wanted him dead". No 'may' or 'might' there. Bald statement of fact with no evidence.

Who's being disingenuous again? Or perhaps you 'might' like to rephrase that sentence?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Actually you're wrong. Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman has said categorically that there is no evidence of any American committing any wrongdoing as a result of the investigation and it's likely that the findings will be against Russia and not an American.

People on here pining for Trump to be removed from office aren't going to get that result from this investigation. It'll be interesting to see what comes of Mike Flynn and his revelations.

Well that's been my main point. There is no evidence that has come to light so far that Trump is in bed with Putin.

I believe that if there was evidence of such, it would already have been leaked into the public domain.

Flynn wants immunity, I don't know if he should get it, but I certainly would like the whole truth to come out.

Water John

Pro Trump people here, all looking for actual evidence.
Perhaps they should ask Trump that, every time he opens his mouth to spout non sense.

Zubeneschamali

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman has said categorically that there is no evidence of any American committing any wrongdoing as a result of the investigation and it's likely that the findings will be against Russia and not an American.

That is not correct.

Sherman said there is no proof, not no evidence.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You said he 'may' have had an issue with her. Ok, so he might not.

But you followed that with "as she wanted him dead". No 'may' or 'might' there. Bald statement of fact with no evidence.

Who's being disingenuous again? Or perhaps you 'might' like to rephrase that sentence?

Well I don't know if it's true or not. I do know that Assange thinks Clinton wanted him dead though.

So in this context, it's totally irrelevant whether it was actually said or not, nor does it matter if I believe it to be true or not. What matters is that it's a belief sincerely held by Assange, and is WikiLeaks position on the matter (which would give him a very personal grievance to then go after Clinton during the election campaign).