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

Call me Al

I'll ask again.

Call me Al wrote: »

Hank, why do you think Trump asked Comey to let go of the Flynn investigation?
Why would he do that, when he knew officially that Flynn was compromised?

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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?

You want me to guess what's gonna happen in 3 years?

Christy42

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.

Second bit, I'm not sure either but my gut tells me he didn't.

Horrific reasoning. If Comey does not believe that this information should be released for reasons related to the investigation than he should not release it. Trump's tenure is not part of the brief for the fbi and it should never become that political.

The leaks are a different matter. A few staff photocopying things they should not. Unless it is something serious it is not a matter for the fbi. Even if there was a serious leak the fbi would investigate the leak alone. Each case of a leak is likely unconnected and you chase rabbit hole after rabbit hole. Meanwhile you have Russia attempting to influence the election. Which do you think the fbi should focus on? There are other resources for the investigating leaks.

As for combating the leaks. A lot of that is on Trump's leadership. The Whitehouse could coat them a lot more effectively if they weren't shown to be lying every other sentence and if Trump could command some loyalty in his staff. Not a justification for taking illegal actions but it is a problem for the Trump administration and they are the ones that need to find a way to fix this.

Also I thought leaks were good?

Really Interested

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.

The US puts foreign persons of interest under surveillance all the time no big issue. To protect US citizens who may by virtue of that survailance, their names are protected. Unmasking is simply looking at such persons ID, say a known Irish criminal is under survailance by the USA say he rings his local Pizza Parlor while that call will be a to a US citizen it will be recorded but the ID of the US person will be protected. Say the same Criminal meets a Cop and has a chat with him again person protected, but say someone looking at the evidence sees multiple meetings at a strange location then they may request unmasking to see if there is any issue. If there is then a warrant may be requested based on prima facia evidence.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

You want me to guess what's gonna happen in 3 years?

Nope. But you can if you want.

Having made a clear argument, I'm asking you if you believe that the middle ground will be affected by Comey's testimony? If not, why not?

Look, rather than deflecting, feel free to just say you don't want to engage with the points I've made. It would be more honest.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

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.

Why would Comey be lying? What motive would he have? Trump has clear motives for lying, as did Flynn, Sessions and Kushner.

Why would Comey put himself under the possibility of being charged for leaking classified info, why would he lie under oath, why would be openly call POTUS a liar?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

They bombed Syria.

And? So what? He also attacked NATO allies, the London Mayor. Bombing Syria was nothing but a firework show, and he told the Russians about it before hand. Had he actually followed it up with demands from Russia then I would agree but he didn't.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

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

He specifically stated during the hearing that he wrote the memos in such a way as to avoid classification laws, 1 to to be to openly discuss them with colleagues and 2 so that he would not fall under any classification rules.

What part in particular did these TV lawyers say broke the law or was it just in a general sense?

Hank Scorpio

Call me Al wrote: »

I'll ask again.

Dunno it's a question that needs to be answered. It was just after he fired Flynn, and as Comey stated, it was in relation to the phonecalls, not the wider Russia investigation. Perhaps he felt he was unfairly treated, but I doubt the compassion of Trump will hold much bearing.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nope. But you can if you want.

Having made a clear argument, I'm asking you if you believe that the middle ground will be affected by Comey's testimony? If not, why not?

Look, rather than deflecting, feel free to just say you don't want to engage with the points I've made. It would be more honest.

What middle ground, the silent voter? They all shifted to Trump last election, and according to the latest polls, don't regret voting for him.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

What part in particular did these TV lawyers say broke the law or was it just in a general sense?

https://youtu.be/H2mDUf0xUZo?t=4595

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What middle ground, the silent voter? They all shifted to Trump last election, and according to the latest polls, don't regret voting for him.

Again you ignore my point. So I'll assume you can't answer.

So, would you have a link to those latest polls that show that the "silent voter" doesn't regret voting for him?

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Again you ignore my point. So I'll assume you can't answer.

So, would you have a link to those latest polls that show that the "silent voter" doesn't regret voting for him?

I honesty don't know what you're asking me, it's all hypothetical.

I posted a ABC or NBC Poll already which went up to the end of April. 96% of his voters don't regret voting for him.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What middle ground, the silent voter? They all shifted to Trump last election, and according to the latest polls, don't regret voting for him.

59,948,323. 69,498,516

60,933,504. 65,915,795

62,984,825. 65,853,516

At most 2 million shifted their vote to the GOP, or came new to voting We also know from recent "polls" that a very small number regret that vote, say we accept the number is 3% then about 1.8 million regret their vote, funny that. At your own figure Hank 4% that's 2.5 million that's back to the GOP core about 60 million.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/22/how-many-trump-voters-really-regret-their-votes/

I really don't see any proof that a huge group of the Middle shifted, at best we may see that the uninterested voted in 2008 for Obama, they may have disappeared since.

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

I really don't see any proof that a huge group of the Middle shifted, at best we may see that the uninterested voted in 2008 for Obama, they may have disappeared since.

I don't know how anyone can predict what will happen in 3 years time, let alone next week.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://youtu.be/H2mDUf0xUZo?t=4595

That is less than useless. The 1st guy says that anything he did whilst undertaking his duties. Easy to argue that. This were personal documents, not required by his position and thus can be argued were not work documents.

Geraldo starts he point by saying he isn't going to get in to whether it was legal of not, was it moral? Jebus. Thats where they are, Trump supporters are now arguing based on morals.

At the end of the day, if Comey broke the law then fine, investigate, charge and send him to jail. i have no issue with that. But by following this line you are accepting that what Comey is saying is right.

Therefore Trump tried to stop a federal investigation into Flynn.

He has done nothing to counter the real threat of Russia interfering in US elections.

Hannity trying to be too smart for his own good in that clip. 'Hey, we can prove Comey is the leaker and should be charged' - but doesn't that mean Trump tried to influence an investigation? - Well yeah, but Comey, right. I mean, Comey, Am I right?

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't know how anyone can predict what will happen in 3 years time, let alone next week.

Where have I predicted anything. You rant on about MSM but you deflect and make false claims all over the place.

For example you made claim about Comey investigation, based on a report that a lawyer may make a "complaint" what's he going to make a complaint about the fact he made the Trump cry?

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

Where have I predicted anything. You rant on about MSM but you deflect and make false claims all over the place.

For example you made claim about Comey investigation, based on a report that a lawyer may make a "complaint" what's he going to make a complaint about the fact he made the Trump cry?

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Moriarty has confused me because I don't know what he's getting it.

I'm off anyway, Trumps meant to give a press conference at around 7 uk time.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://youtu.be/H2mDUf0xUZo?t=4595

He referred to two statutes there:

18 US Code 641
Public money, property or records:
"Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof..."

Real stretch to pull Comey's notes into that one.

and

18 US Code 793
Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:
"Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense..."

WTF? :eek:

Can't really stretch that one either.

FOX News talking nonsense?

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nope. But you can if you want.

Having made a clear argument, I'm asking you if you believe that the middle ground will be affected by Comey's testimony? If not, why not?

Look, rather than deflecting, feel free to just say you don't want to engage with the points I've made. It would be more honest.

On this one I disagree. I am not sure it makes much difference. I reckon it keeps Russia in the news and hurts Trump's poll numbers. At this point it is like death by a thousand cuts for Trump. There have been bigger revelations against Trump.

I reckon it hurts him a bit but not much in the grand scheme of things but I reckon the overall effect of all his mishaps will drag him down eventually.

I mean factually these revelations are a big deal but not sure I trust many who were not already voting against Trump to change their mind over this. A few sure

Call me Al

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Dunno it's a question that needs to be answered. It was just after he fired Flynn, and as Comey stated, it was in relation to the phonecalls, not the wider Russia investigation. Perhaps he felt he was unfairly treated, but I doubt the compassion of Trump will hold much bearing.

So then do you believe Trump's explanation that Flynn was a good guy and had a hard time recently?
If as I suspect, you don't believe him, do you think it was appropriate for him to speak to Comey about this investigation, and appeal for leniency, in this way?
Actually do you think it's acceptable for Trump to ask for Comey's loyalty? And when he doesn't get the answer he wants to ask a second time?

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I honesty don't know what you're asking me, it's all hypothetical.

I posted a ABC or NBC Poll already which went up to the end of April. 96% of his voters don't regret voting for him.

I made a very clear point. If you didn't get it, then I can't make it any clearer. Anyway, let's move on.

This one? The one we discussed last night? It's now six weeks out of date, a six weeks where his approval rating has continued to plummet. An awful lot of negative press and negative leaks have happened in that six weeks culminating in Comey's very damaging testimony.

To demonstrate how out of date it is, it quotes an approval rating of 42%. Three days ago, before Comey's testimony, Trump's approval rating was 34%.

Leroy42

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

He referred to two statutes there:

18 US Code 641
Public money, property or records:
"Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof..."

Real stretch to pull Comey's notes into that one.

and

18 US Code 793
Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:
"Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense..."

WTF? :eek:

Can't really stretch that one either.

FOX News talking nonsense?

I knew he was BS when he said that people can look them up if they want rather than actually state what they were. Its a classic ploy. Call on some type of statute, make a claim based on that. By the time anyone can point out the issue with the said statute the point has already been made and the conversation has moved on.

So Hannity is able to say that based on the statute Comey has a problem, the audience thinks there is a problem, and the discussion from then on revolves around the statute rather than the other way around.

Akrasia

Well, Trump is awake and obviously watching Fox News

Twitter wrote:

Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication...and WOW, Comey is a leaker!

Really Interested

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

He referred to two statutes there:

18 US Code 641
Public money, property or records:
"Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof..."

Real stretch to pull Comey's notes into that one.

and

18 US Code 793
Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:
"Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense..."

WTF? :eek:

Can't really stretch that one either.

FOX News talking nonsense?

But Fox don't have a agenda, please tell me it's not true, that's Hank's Heros are not the paragon of virtue!

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

On this one I disagree. I am not sure it makes much difference. I reckon it keeps Russia in the news and hurts Trump's poll numbers. At this point it is like death by a thousand cuts for Trump. There have been bigger revelations against Trump.

I reckon it hurts him a bit but not much in the grand scheme of things but I reckon the overall effect of all his mishaps will drag him down eventually.

I mean factually these revelations are a big deal but not sure I trust many who were not already voting against Trump to change their mind over this. A few sure

We'll have to disagree on this one. I think the optics of a highly respected lawyer and ex-Head of the FBI testifying on national TV that the president is a liar is extremely damaging to Trump, especially regarding the persuadable voters. At the very least it will confirm many doubts.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

Well, Trump is awake and obviously watching Fox News

He's an early riser. Or maybe he couldn't sleep.

CMOTDibbler

Leroy42 wrote: »

I knew he was BS when he said that people can look them up if they want rather than actually state what they were. Its a classic ploy. Call on some type of statute, make a claim based on that. By the time anyone can point out the issue with the said statute the point has already been made and the conversation has moved on.

Yeah, clearly intended to dissuade people from looking them up.

This kind of dishonesty seems to pervade the US these days. Say something in order to sell your product, message or grandmother knowing it to be untrue, but expecting that nobody will actually check it and if they do, drown them out with white noise knowing that enough people believing your lie is all you really need.

Having recently been there, I can attest to this. It's actually a culture shock to see so much dishonesty on open display.

Call me Al

Akrasia wrote: »

Well, Trump is awake and obviously watching Fox News

And he's been given back his phone.

Mr.Micro

I am not sure what Comey is all about. Trump is not worried about him, that is for sure. If Comey has anything on Trump he needs to man up and say it. Up to now it's all posturing and hot air. What is his game, maybe just attention seeking?

ECO_Mental

I think Comey messed up a bit really when he released that memo the day before hand. People had time to digest and the impact had gone. Imagine him reading that statement out fresh on the day, wow it would have been all over the news for days. It also gave Trump spinners a days advance to come up with BS story. The testimony was a bit of let down and the impact had gone because it was only news by then.

Still the word twisting by the GOP etc trying to say Trump didn't obstruct justice when he asked him to drop the Flynn case is just shameful. :rolleyes:

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

We'll have to disagree on this one. I think the optics of a highly respected lawyer and ex-Head of the FBI testifying on national TV that the president is a liar is extremely damaging to Trump, especially regarding the persuadable voters. At the very least it will confirm many doubts.

I hope you are right.

I love how the man who proclaimed to love leaks somehow has turned leakers into the greatest insult ever. What is even better is that people buy it and agree which I find a hilarious piece of logic.