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

CMOTDibbler

Ipse dixit wrote: »

This post is incredibly misleading and inaccurate. If information was available that Trump colluded with Russia then why haven't the FBI opened an investigation? He's not currently under investigation. I'm not sure what part of that you're failing to understand?

If anything it's very clear at this point that the FBI have no criminal evidence on Trump despite your wishful thinking.

Just a correction on that. He was not under investigation at the time that Comey was fired. That's over a month ago. I'm not suggesting that he is, merely that the status of current investigations is not known at the moment.

Overheal

Pretty consistent

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/28/donald-trump-voters-show-little-regret/

And not surprising, as a Demagogue, Trump blamed blamed blamed blamed blamed. He has never made a public apology in any recent memory I can recollect. In addition to vilifying the media his campaign also focused on blaming politicians, using the abysmal congressional approval rate as a cudgel, even saying "if I lose the vote is rigged." His loyalists were hard-coded against any sort of outside influence, including facts. His base voted for him to attack the 'beltway insiders,' the swamp, and he primed them from day one to know he would be opposed constantly (because of course he will be).

But most Presidencies are like that, a President has to do something colossally 'out of character' for most supporters to change face. You know, like drone-striking the **** out of everyone. Bafflingly, it has little to do with the high profile broken promises, like "Drain the Swamp" and "Lock Her Up," even though Trump all but said 'I wound you cog-springs up to get the vote, now go sit down' (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-chant/index.html)

aloyisious

Ipse dixit wrote: »

This post is incredibly misleading and inaccurate. If information was available that Trump colluded with Russia then why haven't the FBI opened an investigation? He's not currently under investigation. I'm not sure what part of that you're failing to understand?

If anything it's very clear at this point that the FBI have no criminal evidence on Trump despite your wishful thinking.

If you foul up by accusing the president of colluding with the traditional enemy [who's head of state is a former KGB Officer and former Director of the FSB] without succeeding in getting sufficient evidence to incriminate him beyond any defence by his political hacks and cronies, you won't get a second bite of the cherry and will go down in history as the person who wrecked the criminal investigation of the decade. Plus setting the body you headed back a decade in terms of doing the internal security it's supposed to do and make it a lapdog of politicians. The security service in the other state will be delighted with the greatest coup ever.

Water John

Comey is known to have said, he thought he would have 18 months under Trump. That would have given him the full time needed for a complete inquiry.
Once sacked, he initiated a Plan B and engineered for an independent prosecutor.

Drumpot

If Comey was lieing (which I think most people think he wasn't) , he has comitted a crime ? As such, shouldn't the White House insist that he be investigated with Trump himself also taking the stand under oath and telling us what happened? I'm guessing raising his hand to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Trump would just melt when he put his hand on the bible.

the funniest thing about Trumps response was that he feels vindicated. He was desperate for Comey to officially clear his name because deep down , behind all that shallow ego, he is insecure and knows most people don't believe his horsesh*t.

Christy42

Drumpot wrote: »

If Comey was lieing (which I think most people think he wasn't) , he has comitted a crime ? As such, shouldn't the White House insist that he be investigated with Trump himself also taking the stand under oath and telling us what happened? I'm guessing raising his hand to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Trump would just melt when he put his hand on the bible.

the funniest thing about Trumps response was that he feels vindicated. He was desperate for Comey to officially clear his name because deep down , behind all that shallow ego, he is insecure and knows most people don't believe his horsesh*t.

Yes. He would have committed a crime if he lied under oath. Interestingly Trump said he would contradict Comey under oath. I am guessing he is saying this under the proviso that he is never asked to do so. If he did the push for impeachment would have a single event to focus on.

Interesting that Trump calls him a leaker. I mean it isn't a leak if it is false. It is just a fabrication. Of course the doublethink is still in full force in this administration.

Itssoeasy

According to NBC news president trump has said he is 100% wiling to testify to the congress under oath. So that's possibly obstruction of justice and probable perjury from a man who has shown an inability to be truthful.

And I see the house and senate committees are asking for comeys memos and any tapes the White House has. Those tapes might go missing I think.

Water John

Trump would need a rabbit, for any impartial person to give him the benefit of a doubt.

If it is, I said, he said, he's a loser.

Thepoet85

So if Trump takes the stand and under oath contradicts Comey's story, it would mean that one of them would have lied under oath.

What are the chances of Trump being called as a witness, and if he does take the stand and contradicted Comey, what would then happen?

A lot of conjecture on my part I know, just curious as how others see this playing out.

And if it was Trump's word against Comey's, I know who I'd believe. Certainly not the President with a track record of lying and back tracking.

Ipse dixit

InTheTrees wrote: »

The trump campaign is under investigation by the FBI. If it's found they conspired with the Russians then the Donald is gong down.

Yes, but conspiracy in reality is a very hard thing to prove. The Republicans would have to impeach him in such an event but you would have to question what the conspiracy actually is. I don't believe for one second that Trump is part of some wider Russian plot to bring down Western civilisation. I do believe that some of Trumps team may have been involved in the DNC hack but US security officials have already said that the Russians did it so connecting the dots to Trumps team will be incredibly difficult.

This has been a pretty botched investigation from the start in a similar way that Clinton's email scandal was a botched investigation. As far as I'm aware there was no direct interference in votes and I think Comey said as much in his testimony on Thursday IIRC. The public is none the wiser on what has actually went on and no evidence of collusion has been presented to date.

I think at this stage a the investigation needs to start producing results soon as it's incredibly distracting from the real issues facing America such as healthcare, infrastructure and taxation. Trump's policies are incredibly disingenuous in those areas and yet the media are obsessed with trying to pin the impossible tail on the donkey.

Call me Al

I think Comey's testimony yesterday of the specific language used by Trump to describe Flynn ( and recorded in his memo on leaving the meeting) and Trump's use of that same language the following day in a press event, might lend a lot of weight to the veracity of the memos Comet has kept.

feargale

The only possible half-rational motive for Comey to lie under oath would be revenge for the way he has been treated, and he would need to be barking mad to risk his liberty and his reputation on that kind of vindictiveness.

Deaf student

Comey was impressive... calm and composed with a poker face.He spoke without notes throughout entire senate session.
Would believe his testimony more than Trump. His expertise in legal matters stood up as he seems to be an experienced pro.
Impeachment is a difficult matter to prosecute as previous ones such as Clinton have failed in this regard. Trump might get away with this. There is a moot possibility that he might trip himself up again in near future.

Water John

Sen Collins (R) doesn't believe Trump, any way. She's on the Committee.

aloyisious

Deaf student wrote: »

Comey was impressive... calm and composed with a poker face.He spoke without notes throughout entire senate session.
Would believe his testimony more than Trump. His expertise in legal matters stood up as he seems to be an experienced pro.
Impeachment is a difficult matter to prosecute as previous ones such as Clinton have failed in this regard. Trump might get away with this. There is a moot possibility that he might trip himself up again in near future.

On a one-on-one basis again, sitting in separate witness waiting rooms, not having access to any knowledge of what the other witness is saying live and taking turns to answer questions to a committee on oath live on camera, JC a practiced policeman used to to giving evidence on oath as against DT with a proven record of speaking his mind without restraint, on the face of it JC would probably win hands down. It depends on the limitation put on the questions and questioners.

@itsoeasy: if the tapes existed and went missing, what could one conclude about Don?

Water John

Well you cycle questions. He's asked a similar question to one he answered 30 mins ago. If he deviates, he's in trouble. Trump's brain couldn't cope with that.

Really Interested

Not sure if this has been posted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/

"That deposition — 170 transcribed pages — offers extraordinary insights into Trump’s relationship with the truth. Trump’s falsehoods were unstrategic — needless, highly specific, easy to disprove. When caught, Trump sometimes blamed others for the error or explained that the untrue thing really was true, in his mind, because he saw the situation more positively than others did."

Call me Al

Water John wrote: »

Sen Collins (R) doesn't believe Trump, any way. She's on the Committee.

Is that the senator from Maine?

Really Interested

Water John wrote: »

Well you cycle questions. He's asked a similar question to one he answered 30 mins ago. If he deviates, he's in trouble. Trump's brain couldn't cope with that.

If Trump goes in front of any Judicial body while under oath, those out to get him will make it all about him telling the truth. It will be question after question, with the intention of showing trump lied.

I can see the videos being played back with the lie number being in a little counter on the screen!

Itssoeasy

Call me Al wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

Sen Collins (R) doesn't believe Trump, any way. She's on the Committee.

Is that the senator from Maine?

Yes.

CMOTDibbler

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Yes, but conspiracy in reality is a very hard thing to prove. The Republicans would have to impeach him in such an event but you would have to question what the conspiracy actually is. I don't believe for one second that Trump is part of some wider Russian plot to bring down Western civilisation. I do believe that some of Trumps team may have been involved in the DNC hack but US security officials have already said that the Russians did it so connecting the dots to Trumps team will be incredibly difficult.

The word is collusion not conspiracy. There's a subtle difference. Any kind of help or assistance or encouragement to the Russians would be collusion.

Ipse dixit wrote: »

This has been a pretty botched investigation from the start in a similar way that Clinton's email scandal was a botched investigation. As far as I'm aware there was no direct interference in votes and I think Comey said as much in his testimony on Thursday IIRC. The public is none the wiser on what has actually went on and no evidence of collusion has been presented to date.

We know very little about the investigations being carried out. There are actually three currently. The Senate enquiry is less of an investigation than the other two, it's an information collecting exercise more than an investigation. We know very little about the FBI investigation; much of the information about that is being disseminated behind closed doors. The special counsel's investigation has only started.

Drumpot

What exactly has Trump done or said to have any credibility? I mean, he literally accepts anything remotely positive about him and calls anything to the contrary fake news... Whatever about his own delusions, his own supporters seem to just fall back to the pope infallibility strategy without any meaningful investigation of what is going on.

I've listened to some interesting political commentary and some feel Comey testimony is similar to that of an abused woman trying to prove their boss harassed them. You have some people calling her a Lier (most republicans) or saying she should suck it up (senators saying it wasn't so bad) or some saying he should of stood up to the president (senator "look at the size of you") or some just trying to deflect (sure what about Clinton)...

It's actually a great commentary on the nature of tribalism. No different from the actions of the Catholic Church covering up sexual abuse. It's the exact same technique , attack the victim and/or use your position of power to try and push the narrative (fake news).

I mean, the former head of the FBI said that Russia hacked the last election. Without any hesitation, without any doubt and with absolute confidence he said the country's democratic process had been attacked. But the president and current ruling party thought it was more important to discredit the agent, fire him and get it out their that said president wasn't being investigated... USA is springfield. It's so ridiculously idiotic.... But it's also so much human nature to take the blissful approach of ignorance...

Ipse dixit

Saying Russia hacked the general election is extremely dramatic based on the evidence we have to date. How exactly does Russia hack an election? What we're actually accusing Russia of is supporting one candidate over another.

There is a major pining for another Cold War. Hacking the DNC server is hacking the US election and deserves continual outrage but the CIA and DoD arming terrorist groups to overthrow Assad, Gaddafi etc isn't given the same faux outrage. The US has continually provided support to Putin's opposition and has sanctioned Russia continually for their actions despite sanctions being in violations of the WTO rules.

I can see why Putin would do anything in his power to stop HC from becoming POTUS but unless he's actually rigged voting machines he hasn't hacked the election. If we want to question the democratic process, the current US election cycle was one of the most biased media campaigns in living memory.

The hypocrisy is a never ending sideshow

B_Wayne

Hacked a party's server to allow for itself, a foreign regime, to directly affect the outcome of the election in a manner that is deemed illegal by international law. I think you're being very pedantic, nobody here is claiming that voting machine results were modified.

CMOTDibbler

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Saying Russia hacked the general election is extremely dramatic based on the evidence we have to date. How exactly does Russia hack an election? What we're actually accusing Russia of is supporting one candidate over another.

There is a major pining for another Cold War. Hacking the DNC server is hacking the US election and deserves continual outrage but the CIA and DoD arming terrorist groups to overthrow Assad, Gaddafi etc isn't given the same faux outrage. The US has continually provided support to Putin's opposition and has sanctioned Russia continually for their actions despite sanctions being in violations of the WTO rules.

I can see why Putin would do anything in his power to stop HC from becoming POTUS but unless he's actually rigged voting machines he hasn't hacked the election. If we want to question the democratic process, the current US election cycle was one of the most biased media campaigns in living memory.

The hypocrisy is a never ending sideshow

There was a lot more than just hacking DNC or HC email servers. There was also hacking of individual email accounts such as Podesta's and then spear-phishing attacks on an election software company in Florida as well as election officials.

Call me Al

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Saying Russia hacked the general election is extremely dramatic based on the evidence we have to date. How exactly does Russia hack an election? What we're actually accusing Russia of is supporting one candidate over another.

There is a major pining for another Cold War. Hacking the DNC server is hacking the US election and deserves continual outrage but the CIA and DoD arming terrorist groups to overthrow Assad, Gaddafi etc isn't given the same faux outrage. The US has continually provided support to Putin's opposition and has sanctioned Russia continually for their actions despite sanctions being in violations of the WTO rules.

I can see why Putin would do anything in his power to stop HC from becoming POTUS but unless he's actually rigged voting machines he hasn't hacked the election. If we want to question the democratic process, the current US election cycle was one of the most biased media campaigns in living memory.

The hypocrisy is a never ending sideshow

I suggest you watch the recent testimony under oath at senate Intel committee for Trump/Russia from former FBI agent Clint Watts.
It's available on YouTube.
That might give you something to ponder if you feel.that the only way hacking can take place is by rigging voting machines.
ETA and then consider Trump's resistance on investigating this, or anyone he has interacted with who was/is connected with the Russian administration.

CMOTDibbler

B_Wayne wrote: »

Hacked a party's server to allow for itself, a foreign regime, to directly affect the outcome of the election in a manner that is deemed illegal by international law. I think you're being very pedantic, nobody here is claiming that voting machine results were modified.

Attempts were certainly made to affect the result. There were attempts to alter the voter registration databases which would have a direct effect on the result.

Whether it can be said that they were successfull or not is pretty difficult. In order to prove that something has been changed, you need a previous state that demonstrates that. People think backups can be used, but backups of large databases are usually done on an incremental basis and by their nature, databases change all the time. So you have to find effectively a needle in a very large haystack and then prove that it was not a normal change.

It's often some outside evidence that points to hacking, not the data itself.

PropJoe10

Not sure why anyone would want to hear Trump testify, seeing that he's proven to have a fairly healthy disregard for facts or the truth. I'd love to hear Comey's thoughts on his latest ramblings!

Leroy42

There is no way that Trump will testify. He was stupid to say that he would.

I'm sure in his won head he thinks that he can sort all this out, 'Just let me sort it out, lawyers and advisors are just messing it up. I'm Trump, once they listen to me they'll know'

But of course the GOP and the WH know that the risk is just too great. Even if he was telling the truth, and Comey made the whole thing up, the fact of the individual meetings, the nine contacts, the changing narrative on the firing, it has the potential to be a minefield.

You do not allow your client to enter into a court to potentially implicate themselves, unless it is the last resort. And with the GOP protecting Trump, he is no where near the last chance saloon.

Like with his statements on the tapes his "100% willing" will stay that. He is willing but will never actually be asked

wes

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is no way that Trump will testify. He was stupid to say that he would.

I wouldn't 100% rule it out. If people were able to hurt his ego enough, he could actually do it against all advice and common sense.