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

BabyCheeses

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What's that, that I thought the Russian collusion story was fabricated by the Dems and media?

So far I've been proven right.

And still refuses to say anything positive about Trump, whatever happened to Seth Rich with the wire tapped microwave and muh Russia? I notice how you have adopted saying Russian collusion, you said before Russia did nothing. Why is it just collusion now?

I don't know in what world you have been proven right about anything, you haven't even had an original thought that I haven't seen being pushed by Trump supporters 24 hours previously.

StringerBell

Really Interested wrote: »

So you followed wikileaks long before last year but you had no knowledge of Clinton?

At this point its almost like The Donald himself has graced the thread to post inconsistently, ramble and outright lie.

Professor Moriarty

It is this line from Comey's written statement that intrigues me:

“He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia,”

Why say that to Comey? Comey never brought the subject up so obviously The Donald was fishing. Maybe Steele's accusation of Kompromat tapes of golden showers might be true. It would explain everything.

Professor Moriarty

Whatever one's political beliefs, I don't know how one can defend such a repulsive creature as Trump and still face oneself in the mirror.

Hank Scorpio

BabyCheeses wrote: »

notice how you have adopted saying Russian collusion, you said before Russia did nothing. Why is it just collusion now?

Why didn't the DNC let the FBI investigate their servers? It's a fair question. They were refused access multiple times.

Professor Moriarty

Seeing as nobody can refute my argument so far, I'll indulge myself by reposting it in the vain hope that someone, anyone, could engage with its substance:

No, there probably won't. And Trump's 34% (new low) approval rating will probably remain much the same as that is hard core - mostly religious nuts (giggle), hillbillies, racists and the deluded - and as such would vote for him again. But this testimony, under oath and by a highly respected ex-head of the FBI, will further erode and alienate the middle ground.

The GOP's response has been a barrage of childish tweets by an unelected little rich kid talking about how hard a man his daddy is. And by Paul Ryan who said that Trump was "new to this". Pathetic and very obviously pathetic.

The middle ground looks at the pussy grabbing, egotistical, misogynistic, failed businessman, rich kid celebrity liar and they look at Comey, a dignified, highly educated and respected man with an impeccable record. And then they decide who to believe. The middle ground got him elected and they will be voting in 2018 as well as for the next POTUS. This is why Comey's testimony matters greatly

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Why didn't the DNC let the FBI investigate their servers? It's a fair question. They were refused access multiple times.

As Comey said yesterday, the FBI didn't need access. They got all the info they needed. Yes it would have been easier if they had direct access, but a very highly regarded third party carried out all the work they required and enabled the FBI to undertake the necessary investigation.

You are trying to paint it as some sort of obstruction, when it was never that.

Why doesn't Trump hand over the tapes of the Comey meetings?
Why hasn't Trump handed over the transcripts of Kushners meetings with the Russians?
Why hasn't Trump handed over the transcripts of Sessions meetings with the Russians?

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Seeing as nobody can refute my argument so far, I'll indulge myself by reposting it in the vain hope that someone, anyone, could engage with its substance:

No, there probably won't. And Trump's 34% (new low) approval rating will probably remain much the same as that is hard core - mostly religious nuts (giggle), hillbillies, racists and the deluded - and as such would vote for him again. But this testimony, under oath and by a highly respected ex-head of the FBI, will further erode and alienate the middle ground.

The GOP's response has been a barrage of childish tweets by an unelected little rich kid talking about how hard a man his daddy is. And by Paul Ryan who said that Trump was "new to this". Pathetic and very obviously pathetic.

The middle ground looks at the pussy grabbing, egotistical, misogynistic, failed businessman, rich kid celebrity liar and they look at Comey, a dignified, highly educated and respected man with an impeccable record. And then they decide who to believe. The middle ground got him elected and they will be voting in 2018 as well as for the next POTUS. This is why Comey's testimony matters greatly

Who would reply to such an ignorant post. That kind of talking down is why he won.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

As Comey said yesterday, the FBI didn't need access. They got all the info they needed. Yes it would have been easier if they had direct access, but a very highly regarded third party carried out all the work they required and enabled the FBI to undertake the necessary investigation

That's not true, they requested access and were refused. In a previous statement he said it was unprecedented.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Who would reply to such an ignorant post. That kind of talking down is why he won.

Well, to make it accurate, why he won was that he talked down about foreigners. At that was perfectly fine with his base.

So you can't honestly complain when people 'tell it like it is' just because it happens to offend you.

I thought Trump supporters were fed up with all that PC nonsense!

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's not true, they requested access and were refused. In a previous statement he said it was unprecedented.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

I didn't say they didn't refuse access, I said that Comey stated yesterday that they didn't need access. Yes, it would have been better if they got it, but they were not stopped from doing their job as they got all the information they needed anyway through a third party.

Do you acknowledge that he said that yesterday?

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I think it's a perfectly understandable explanation for firing him, he refused to publicly state Trump wasn't under investigation. He refused to investigate leakers. Meanwhile there's leaks (many of which turn out to be rubbish) in the media every day undermining him. Impossible situation, it makes sense to me.

But that doesn't tally with what Trump has said about the firing. Or even his understanding of what the firing would result in. Comey didn't point blank refuse to make that announcement, he pointed out the inadvisability of doing so. Pretty good reasons imo because once that door is opened, he has to use phrases like "not currently under investigation" or else walk that back if there are some things that even peripherally involve Trump that subsequently come under investigation. In much the same way that he had to come out just before the election and admit that the new leaks about hacked emails could require re-opening that investigation.

Remember that yesterday he wouldn't answer in open session whether Trump colluded with Russia or not.

For Trump to say after firing Comey that "that's [Russian 'cloud'] gone now" seems to indicate that he somehow thought that firing Comey would end the investigation or at best a new director would be more amenable to making public pronouncements that Trump sought.

Neither are particularly comforting choices.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, to make it accurate, why he won was that he talked down about foreigners. At that was perfectly fine with his base.

Which made it even more surprising he had such a good % with the Latino vote.

Your point is true though, no need for the name calling on either side.

BabyCheeses

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Why didn't the DNC let the FBI investigate their servers? It's a fair question. They were refused access multiple times.

Is that you McCain?

Has the stress of supporting Trump finally got to you?

And you still can't think of anything positive to say about Trump. How is the media supposed to be positive about him when his own supporters can't even think of something?

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Who would reply to such an ignorant post. That kind of talking down is why he won.

Well you did reply to it. Remember? Now you say the post is "ignorant" As one whose original response to the post was "Yeah, that's rubbish IMO", perhaps you should put that stone down as you are in a glasshouse.

Anyway, please do tell, which parts of the post are "ignorant"? Because it really does seem to me that you have no response to the argument made in it and are hiding behind tetchy one-liners instead.

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

But that doesn't tally with what Trump has said about the firing. Or even his understanding of what the firing would result in. Comey didn't point blank refuse to make that announcement, he pointed out the inadvisability of doing so. Pretty good reasons imo because once that door is opened, he has to use phrases like "not currently under investigation" or else walk that back if there are some things that even peripherally involve Trump that subsequently come under investigation.

That reason doesn't make much sense to me, he preferred let everyone assume Trump was under investigation which was crippling his tenure.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That reason doesn't make much sense to me, he preferred let everyone assume Trump was under investigation which was crippling his tenure.

Has the FBI ever made an announcement that an individual, who is peripherally or otherwise caught up in an investigation, are not themselves under investigation?

Genuine question.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Anyway, please do tell, which parts of the post are "ignorant"? Because it really does seem to me that you have no response to the argument made in it and are hiding behind tetchy one-liners instead.

Why do the Democrats have a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts since Obama took office? If you think about the reasons, you might find out why people voted for Trump.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Why do the Democrats have a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts since Obama took office? If you think about the reasons, you might find out why people voted for Trump.

Hmmm. Got a link to that? Would it be because of Trump's initial wave - before he alienated so many sections of society, the media and the intel services and the world?

Anyway, the substance of my argument. Thoughts?

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Has the FBI ever made an announcement that an individual, who is peripherally or otherwise caught up in an investigation, are not themselves under investigation?

Genuine question.

Don't have a clue.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hmmm. Got a link to that? Would it be because of Trump's initial wave - before he alienated so many sections of society, the media and the intel services and the world?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/27/democrats-lost-over-1000-seats-under-obama.html

Anyway, the substance of my argument. Thoughts?

I think you're misjudged about how Trump came out of the hearing. People have lost faith in the media/Washington imo and the hearing solidifies that. I wouldn't put much faith in polls after what went on during the election.

Peregrinus

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Has the FBI ever made an announcement that an individual, who is peripherally or otherwise caught up in an investigation, are not themselves under investigation?

Genuine question.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Don't have a clue.

No, they don't (which Hank would know, or work out, if he had paid much attention to what Comey said, rather than relying on Trumpista repackagings and interpretations of what Comey said.)

The FBI is basically a police force, and police forces don't usually announce that someone is not being investigated, for two reasons. First, if they did that, then the failure to make such an announcement if asked, would be tantamount to confirmation that someone was being investigated, and police forces have a natural disinclination to be under an obligation to reveal the existence of ongoing investigations. Secondly, once you do announce that X is not under investigation, there is than an obligation to correct the record if, as investigations proceeds, it becomes necessary to look at X. Comey covered this in his evidence. When Trump asked him to confirm publicly that he, Trump, was not one of the individuals who was a subject in the Russia/hacking investigation, Comey pointed out that that might not be in Trump's interest since there would then be an obligation to make a further announcement if anything did emerge which made Trump a subject of investigation.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Don't have a clue.

So it's hard to point the finger at Comey and blame him for this, no?

The reality of the Russian investigation is that very close confidants and high-ranking members of the Trump campaign including appointees to his cabinet were under investigation and (in the case of Flynn) were likely to face charges.

In those circumstances, the likelihood of Trump being caught up in this investigation is still not so vansihingly small as to be disregarded. Even in the face of Comey's announcement that he was not personally under investigation. That's not the ringing endorsement you seem to think it is.

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So it's hard to point the finger at Comey and blame him for this, no?

I can see why it is.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I can see why it is.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Leroy42

So Hank, do you think it was wrong, given the explanations of both Comey and posters on here, that Comey did not publicly state the Trump wasn't under investigation?
So you not think it odd that despite widespread acceptance that Russia tried to actively influence the election that POTUS has said nothing about it and has done nothing to combat it. In fact, the only thing Trump has done is paint Putin as the good guy?
Do you think Comey broke any laws releasing personal accounts of meetings he had with the president, at which no classified information was discussed?
Do you think Trump should release the tapes he threated Comey with?

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Not sure what you're saying here.

I'm just curious about the the motive behind the surveillance, unmaskings and so on. There's damning stories to come out about Comey over the next few days according to John Solomon, someone who I believe isn't a bs artist.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Hank, do you think it was wrong, given the explanations of both Comey and posters on here, that Comey did not publicly state the Trump wasn't under investigation?

Prefer wait and see what's said over the next few days, press conference around 7 tomorrow. If Comey is honest in what he said then sure I can agree with his reasons.

So you not think it odd that despite widespread acceptance that Russia tried to actively influence the election that POTUS has said nothing about it and has done nothing to combat it. In fact, the only thing Trump has done is paint Putin as the good guy?

They bombed Syria.

Do you think Comey broke any laws releasing personal accounts of meetings he had with the president, at which no classified information was discussed?
Do you think Trump should release the tapes he threated Comey with?

Don't know if he broke laws, lawyers on TV earlier said he potentially did.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/27/democrats-lost-over-1000-seats-under-obama.html



I think you're misjudged about how Trump came out of the hearing. People have lost faith in the media/Washington imo and the hearing solidifies that. I wouldn't put much faith in polls after what went on during the election.

So the Dems lost seats under Obama? That's hardly news. Here's something that should make Trump and the GOP sit up and take notice following on from that link. Trump's approval rating is 34%. At the same stage, Obama's was 61%. Not looking good for GOP seats if we follow your logic.

Anyway, back to my point. Ignoring the 34% who would vote for Trump if he kneecapped their children and ignoring the Dem base (let's say conservatively 40%) who have always detested Trump, then that leaves 26% who might be persuadable. An important middle ground for 2018 and 2020.

The persuadable must consider the pussy grabbing, egotistical, misogynistic, failed businessman, rich kid, celebrity liar while they watch Comey, a dignified, highly educated and respected man with an impeccable record, giving testimony under oath that Trump is a liar

Who do you think they are going to believe?

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm just curious about the the motive behind the surveillance, unmaskings and so on. There's damning stories to come out about Comey over the next few days according to John Solomon, someone who I believe isn't a bs artist.

As with other stories about 'what X is going to say about Y', I won't hold my breath.

Until of course there's actual evidence.