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

hmmm

namloc1980 wrote: »

The KGB in their Soviet days could have only dreamed of pulling off this.

They could never dream of the power that the Internet and a few talented hackers could give them. A few thousand posters spread out across every Internet forum (there's probably a couple assigned to Boards) and they were able to sew chaos across the entire Western world. Our own openness was used against us - this sort of thing couldn't happen in Russia or China where posters who opposed the government would be hauled out of their Internet cafes for re-education.

Next up for this treatment is Germany. This is an interesting article about the Macron IT team and how they tried to slow down the Russian hackers by creating fake email accounts. http://goo.gl/nGfmnb

namloc1980

hmmm wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RusEmbUSA/status/862324158646165506

Ambassador Kislyak. That Kislyak. In the Oval Office shaking hands with a glowing Trump in a photograph taken by a Russian media team. It's beyond unbelievable, it is utterly mindblowing.

Utterly phenomenal. The day after he fired the man investigating his links to Russia, he meets them in the Oval Office with only Russian media present. It's beyond reality at this stage. Crazy stuff.

hatrickpatrick

Just one of the many flip-flops currently doing the rounds of Trump's support base. These people really should have kept their mouths shut and let Trump implode on his own.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

During the election "Comey is a Trump/Russian puppet for not letting Clinton's email scandal slide and he should be fired by Obama for this"

It wasn't a question of not letting it slide; it was a question of clumsily breaking the FBI's rules and procedures and influencing - possibly inadvertently - an election with a non-story.

Now: "Comey is some kind of hero, Trump is a disgrace for firing him"

Not sure if anyone is describing Comey as a hero, but Trump is a disgrace for firing him. If he was going to fire him for the blatantly untrue reason he gave today, he should have done so as soon as he was elected.

I don't disagree that politicians are masters in the art of hypocrisy, but you're wilfully misreading this situation.

Leroy42

Again, its not that he was fired that is the problem, it is the reason behind it.

All the tiresome flip flop stuff you are posting could just as easily be thrown at Trump and GOP

Comey relaunches email investigation in October and GOP, Trump & Sessions all come out saying how great he was.

Trump keeps him on when he starts and only when the Russian investigation won't only not go away but now Comey is actively seeking more funds and manpower to increase it is there suddenly a problem.

A problem that needs to be sorted ASAP, based on 1 memo from 1 guy in the job 2 weeks.

hmmm

https://twitter.com/cohendavid/status/862350083576127488

Cohen is an ex Deputy Director of the CIA

gctest50

hmmm wrote: »

They could never dream of the power that the Internet ......]

lolski, Russian hacker is best hacker, not need internet



http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-planted-bugged-thumb-drives-to-break-into-us-govt-computers-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

aloyisious

Next Tuesday MIGHT reveal what Jim Comey has in his possession knowledge-wise of any Russian links to the Trump election team members over the past year or two. The Senate inquiry is meeting in a closed session, public and press not allowed attend. Matters usually not allowed open to inquiry can be revealed as the committee has clearance for all levels. If Don really has something to worry about, the tweets will show up thick and fast. If there is anything in Jim's possession the admin fears, I hope it and Jim are kept safe til Tuesday to prevent loss or damage over the weekend.

I'm IMAGINING (capital letters) some White House legal move scenarios now in the event that they know Jim does know something...... One scenario is that Don appoints a Special Prosecutor who seizes everything Jim has and serves him with hush restrictions til he can interview him in furtherance of his (new) investigation into any links between the Russians & the Admin members over the past two or so years, in an attempt by Don to stop the senate bipartisan committee talking to Jim. Another scenario is that Don asks his AG to go to the USSC to get a court order to try prevent Jim being interviewed by the committee and I don't see that being given, in deference to the blocks and balances built into the constitution. It'd be something else if his new AG said "NO" to Don's order.. I'd imagine the senate would be full of very unhappy bunnies if something was done by Don & Co to try stop them talking to Jim. Of course those two scenarios are probably improbable worst case which would never come to pass as Dom and Co have nothing to hide.......

hmmm

Washington (CNN)There are two reasons why President Donald Trump fired James Comey, according to a source close to the now-former FBI director:

1. Comey never provided the President with any assurance of personal loyalty.
2. The fact that the FBI's investigation into possible Trump team collusion with Russia in the 2016 election was accelerating.

"Personal loyalty"? Holy god, it's not a dictatorship yet.

Itssoeasy

hmmm wrote: »

Washington (CNN)There are two reasons why President Donald Trump fired James Comey, according to a source close to the now-former FBI director:

1. Comey never provided the President with any assurance of personal loyalty.
2. The fact that the FBI's investigation into possible Trump team collusion with Russia in the 2016 election was accelerating.

"Personal loyalty"? Holy god, it's not a dictatorship yet.

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The above is the oath that the FBI director along with many others take when sworn in. Nowhere is Donald J Trump mentioned or even the word president. If that first point is true than than is one more insane part of the trump presidency.

PropJoe10

Gintonious wrote: »

And the latest Quinnipac poll has Trump at a near-record low approval rating.

58% Disapprove
36% Approve

How low can the sink ship?

Hopefully about as low as the Titanic is in the Atlantic Ocean.

Itssoeasy

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Hopefully about as low as the Titanic is in the Atlantic Ocean.

So is Russia the iceberg then ?

PopePalpatine

Gintonious wrote: »

And the latest Quinnipac poll has Trump at a near-record low approval rating.

58% Disapprove
36% Approve

How low can the sink ship?

If you remember the "contributions" of a not-so-dearly-departed former poster here who would vote for a turd if it had an R next to it on the ballot paper, I can't imagine it sinking much lower without Trump wiping his ass with a Bible.

seamus

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The above is the oath that the FBI director along with many others take when sworn in. Nowhere is Donald J Trump mentioned or even the word president. If that first point is true than than is one more insane part of the trump presidency.

In fact, it's one of the sacred cows of the US system that they bang on about "checks and balances".

In order for this ideal to hold true, all public officials must remain loyal to the country and the constitution. Demanding loyalty to an individual such as the President is exactly what shouldn't be happening. That is, according to the ideals of the US system, there is nobody who is above reproach, nobody who is due the unwavering loyalty and respect of anyone else.

What makes this funny is that it's more often than not the gun-toting, "respect muh constitution" types who would simultaneously call someone a traitor for daring to question the president or the white house team.

Peregrinus

I like kicking Trump in the kidneys as much as the next bloke, but I have to point out that the only claim that Comey was asked to provide Trump with an "assurance of personal loyalty" is attributed to "a source close to the now-former FBI director" - i.e. to Comey himself.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

I like kicking Trump in the kidneys as much as the next bloke, but I have to point out that the only claim that Comey was asked to provide Trump with an "assurance of personal loyalty" is attributed to "a source close to the now-former FBI director" - i.e. to Comey himself.

TBF to Comey, in a dignified letter to FBI staff, he made it clear that Trump had the authority to fire him "for any reason or no reason at all". The personal loyalty pledge rumour is only a sideshow.

Kitsunegari

seamus wrote: »

In fact, it's one of the sacred cows of the US system that they bang on about "checks and balances".

In order for this ideal to hold true, all public officials must remain loyal to the country and the constitution. Demanding loyalty to an individual such as the President is exactly what shouldn't be happening. That is, according to the ideals of the US system, there is nobody who is above reproach, nobody who is due the unwavering loyalty and respect of anyone else.

What makes this funny is that it's more often than not the gun-toting, "respect muh constitution" types who would simultaneously call someone a traitor for daring to question the president or the white house team.

But that doesn't happen. Both parties are loyal to themselves or corporate interests. The checks and balances system works if it wasn't full of partisan interests. I don't know of anyone who is suggesting complete blind loyalty to Trump but I'd be happy to be corrected on that if you can prove otherwise. I can see where both sides are coming on this issue; on one hand Trump's supporters are pointing out the blatant hypocrisy from the likes of Schumer, Sanders etc. over the firing of Comey and it's been pointed out that Comey's replacement, for now, Andrew McCabe has major ties to the Democrats though his wife and Terry McAuliffe. He's also under investigation for his handling of the Clinton email scandal.

On the other hand, you can see how poor this looks for Trump. Both sides of the stories are full of conspiracy theories and rumour. The Democrats seem to be under the impression that the Russian investigation is being hampered by Trump. At this point, Trump needs to appoint someone entirely independent as there is so much haze and mud in the middle ground at the minute.

The last time a president sought 'loyalty' from an FBI director we had Watergate.

Leroy42

So reports today are saying that Rosenstein is unhappy that his memo is being used as the reason for Comey being fired.

It is also being reported that Comey never stated to Trump that he was not directly under investigation, never mind on 3 separate occasions.

Now I have no backup for these stories, but given the huge evidence behind Trump being a liar (was it something like 200 false statements in his first 100 days) together with all the other circumstantial evidence (the WH Press corp appearing to be caught off guard, Comey only recently asking for more funds and manpower to extend the Russian investigations etc) I would question why anyone would have even the slightest inkling to believe anything that Trump says.

Call me Al

Trump's "boy who cried wolf" impersonation until now means that any claims he makes, irrespective of the circumstances or gravitas of same, are questionable.
You have to fact-check everything that he says irrespective of how official it is.

How they fact-check Trump's claim that he was assured 3 times by Comey that he wasn't under investigation is a puzzle. Maybe Comey can be directly asked this when he's questioned by the next committee. Will it be behind closed doors I wonder?

Professor Moriarty

This is well worth 16 minutes of your time. It's a devastating deconstruction by Dem senator Al Franken of Comey's 'termination'.

Leroy42

Call me Al wrote: »

Trump's "boy who cried wolf" impersonation until now means that any claims he makes, irrespective of the circumstances or gravitas of same, are questionable.
You have to fact-check everything that he says irrespective of how official it is.

How they fact-check Trump's claim that he was assured 3 times by Comey that he wasn't under investigation is a puzzle. Maybe Comey can be directly asked this when he's questioned by the next committee. Will it be behind closed doors I wonder?

But Trump doesn't care about the fact checking. Like with the Obama Tapping tweet, he simply says what he wants and lets everyone try to disprove it. By the time anybody has got anywhere, the story has moved on and nobody cares.

Yesterday the narrative was that this was done because of Rosenstein. We even had posters on here claiming that anybody raising questions was a liberal and a conspiracy nut.

Turns out that Trump has been a little lassiz faire with the truth as usual. But he knows that there are enough people willing to blindly follow him regardless to achieve his aim.

I see that some of the media of visibly getting tired of the nonsense. KellyAnne Conway, for example, is openly destained because she has no credibility whatsoever.

At what point do people start to look at the clear evidence that Trump is incapable of being honest and start to question what he says? Its baffling to me that anybody still consideres anything he says as anything other that fake.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

So reports today are saying that Rosenstein is unhappy that his memo is being used as the reason for Comey being fired.

It is also being reported that Comey never stated to Trump that he was not directly under investigation, never mind on 3 separate occasions.

Now I have no backup for these stories, but given the huge evidence behind Trump being a liar (was it something like 200 false statements in his first 100 days) together with all the other circumstantial evidence (the WH Press corp appearing to be caught off guard, Comey only recently asking for more funds and manpower to extend the Russian investigations etc) I would question why anyone would have even the slightest inkling to believe anything that Trump says.

The Washington Post is the source of those leaks. It has to be noted that the WP have printed some false and poorly sourced stories over the past 18 months. It's just another narrative to the story. It's also worth noting that the Department of Justice has noted that Comey did not request additional funds days before his dismissal.

At this point we're going to be miles away from a completed investigation. McCain a 'special' Congressional committee to investigate the Russian collusion but that makes a criminal prosecution almost entirely impossible ala the Iran-Contra scandal. A special counsel will take months to bring people up to speed but it looks like we're in this for the long haul.

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The Washington Post is the source of those leaks. It has to be noted that the WP have printed some false and poorly sourced stories over the past 18 months. It's just another narrative to the story. It's also worth noting that the Department of Justice has noted that Comey did not request additional funds days before his dismissal.

At this point we're going to be miles away from a completed investigation. McCain a 'special' Congressional committee to investigate the Russian collusion but that makes a criminal prosecution almost entirely impossible ala the Iran-Contra scandal. A special counsel will take months to bring people up to speed but it looks like we're in this for the long haul.

All that maybe be true, but Trump is clearly a liar. There is no, couple of times, some slightly skewed etc. He has lied, and lied repeatedly.

Why would you, and others, put any faith in anything he says?

Why should be accept, at face value, his reasons for firing Comey. Trump has shown time and time again that he will make up stuff to try to suit his own agenda.

I can't state what is the truth. There really is only a very select group of people that now that. But what I do know is that Trumps previous actions show that at the very least anything that comes out through him or his associates should be treated with the utmost suspicion.

mcmoustache

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just one of the many flip-flops currently doing the rounds of Trump's support base. These people really should have kept their mouths shut and let Trump implode on his own.

It's possible to dislike how somebody handled something wile also disliking the circumstances under which the person was fired. You can dislike how Comey handled the Hillary statement while also disliking the fact that he was fired by Trump for investigating Trump/Russia.

I understand that your talking point has been pushed really hard in places like The_Donald, but outside of such cesspits, it's not really that complicated a position to hold.

ThisRegard

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is also being reported that Comey never stated to Trump that he was not directly under investigation, never mind on 3 separate occasions.

Now I have no backup for these stories,

Well common sense tells you he would never have told him any detail of an active investigation.

Christy42

ThisRegard wrote: »

Well common sense tells you he would never have told him any detail of an active investigation.

In this case the onus of proof is to find evidence that Trump was told on these occasions. We only have Trump's word for it which is not worth anything at this point.

Edit: I am also very confused as to why the position of this guy was fired for dodgy reasons even if we did not like him ourselves is so mistifying for the right wing here.

Like seriously Trump was non to unhappy about Comey reopening the email investigation close to the election but now it is why he was fired 6 months later? Oh and of course he got a letter? And you wonder why people think the firing was due to other reasons?

Especially with a president who is known for narcissistic tendancies and for being unhappy with how much this investigation has taken over news cycles (and found some dodgy dealings in his team).

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

So reports today are saying that Rosenstein is unhappy that his memo is being used as the reason for Comey being fired.

It is also being reported that Comey never stated to Trump that he was not directly under investigation, never mind on 3 separate occasions.

Now I have no backup for these stories, but given the huge evidence behind Trump being a liar (was it something like 200 false statements in his first 100 days) together with all the other circumstantial evidence (the WH Press corp appearing to be caught off guard, Comey only recently asking for more funds and manpower to extend the Russian investigations etc) I would question why anyone would have even the slightest inkling to believe anything that Trump says.

Washington post today will lead with the reason for Comey dismissal being because he demanded more resources from DOJ to crank the FBI Russia probe up. 30 sources for this.
There is also a report that Trump confronted Comey about the existence of the Grand Juries. It strikes me that Comey would have expected to be fired.
Apparently Trump told Rosenthal to write a memo about Comey on Monday, which would mean that Pence also lied again as he publicly denied that the dismissal was related to Russia in any way.

Note* Below are sources from Social Media but were correct re Grand Juries, FISA warrants etc. weeks before main media.

Related to the Grand Juries: sources are saying that the majority of sealed indictments were handed down in the Southern District of New York, with four sealed indictments in the Eastern District of Virginia. The NY GJ is at State level using RICO. Eric Schniederman (Trump University) is AG there.
They are also saying arrests are imminent and could happen as early as today..

Trump, Sessions, Pence et al clearly in cover up mode which will add to the obstruction of Justice charges. Normally it is true that the cover up is worse than the crime. In this case there is an exception to the rule as the crime is treason.

NinjaKirby

hmmm wrote: »

They could never dream of the power that the Internet and a few talented hackers could give them. A few thousand posters spread out across every Internet forum (there's probably a couple assigned to Boards) and they were able to sew chaos across the entire Western world. Our own openness was used against us - this sort of thing couldn't happen in Russia or China where posters who opposed the government would be hauled out of their Internet cafes for re-education.

Next up for this treatment is Germany. This is an interesting article about the Macron IT team and how they tried to slow down the Russian hackers by creating fake email accounts. http://goo.gl/nGfmnb

I think this is a fascinating take on things.

It's not that unreasonable to imagine that they would have the resources to pay a few thousand people to spend 12 hour shifts working over internet forums, twitter etc.

One intriguing thing I think you might be missing is that they would almost certainly have people posing as members of both sides.

I know this story is from the 1960s but it shows you what was going on back then and hints at what could be going on right now.

(guys, beware there is a graphic image in the article of someone who has been shot)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/world/europe/27germany.html

Basically a police officer in West Berlin shoots a left wing protester and sets off a sequence of riots, violent clashes etc. It is subsequently discovered that the police officer was actually an East German spy.

At least we don't quite have these levels of violence yet but maybe a very similar scenario is playing out on social media.

Seeing the more extreme pro-Trump people and the more extreme anti-Trump people and you wonder if those people are willfully and knowingly damaging the side they claim to be on.

If one side is engaging in this behavior then you can be damn sure that both sides are. Especially if it is as effective as everyone says it is. I don't believe for a minute that the Russians are the only ones. Just, the finger is pointing at the Russians.

On this thread there are a couple of pro-Trump and anti-Trump types with terrible attitudes and deceitful ways of making dishonest points. I do wonder if people would be inclined to take an opposing political view to those posters just because they dislike them so much on a personal level.

It seems kind of reasonable actually that a series of irrational and dishonest, yet very vocal and visible, people on one side of the argument are so toxic that they drive people to support the opposition. This could easily be a deliberate tactic.

Maybe one day history will reveal the extent of online manipulation of public opinion.

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The Washington Post is the source of those leaks. It has to be noted that the WP have printed some false and poorly sourced stories over the past 18 months. It's just another narrative to the story. It's also worth noting that the Department of Justice has noted that Comey did not request additional funds days before his dismissal.

At this point we're going to be miles away from a completed investigation. McCain a 'special' Congressional committee to investigate the Russian collusion but that makes a criminal prosecution almost entirely impossible ala the Iran-Contra scandal. A special counsel will take months to bring people up to speed but it looks like we're in this for the long haul.

Do you have examples of these 'false stories'? Are you implying they deliberately reported fake news? Was it only the WP that reported those examples?

demfad

Kitsunegari wrote: »

At this point we're going to be miles away from a completed investigation. McCain a 'special' Congressional committee to investigate the Russian collusion but that makes a criminal prosecution almost entirely impossible ala the Iran-Contra scandal. A special counsel will take months to bring people up to speed but it looks like we're in this for the long haul.

Can you please acknowledge that there are Grand Juries in operation which CAN bring indictments and prosecutions?? You have been told this on at least two occasions yet you continue to spread the above disinformation.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html