Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

Campaigns always are looking for dirt on their opposition.  Don Jr did nothing wrong taking that short meeting.  Now if you want to talk about REAL Russian collusion, lets look at Hillary Clinton paying for a false Russian propaganda dossier used to illegally spy on the Trump administration in a scheme to derail Trump’s bid for the White House and later cripple his presidency, IMO. That may not fall under the term of treason, but it sure sounds like sedition to me. Where’s Mueller’s indictment of Clinton?

Wow. You've gone full MAGA haven't you.

I do have a "Make America Great Again" campaign sign hanging in my house.  It's right next to a copy of the US Constitution, a US flag, and my Woodstock and Live Aid tickets.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

Is that so wrong?

Supporting Trump is fine but you are providing a lot "facts" that have been shown to be false. That's not fine and you can expect to be corrected.

I am very careful in making sure what I post is my opinion.  Although one could argue they are facts, I (at least) find it necessary when posting to avoid problems.  I'm curious... What has been shown to be false?  Examples, please.  I don't mind being corrected, and admit when I'm wrong...  I've done it several times, as I recall.  I'm far from perfect.  Opinionated, yes... obstinate... sure, but perfect... no way!

everlast75

notobtuse wrote: »

I am very careful in making sure what I post is my opinion.  Although one could argue they are facts, I (at least) find it necessary when posting to avoid problems.  I'm curious... What has been shown to be false?  Examples, please.  I don't mind being corrected, and admit when I'm wrong...  I've done it several times, as I recall.  I'm far from perfect.  Opinionated, yes... obstinate... sure, but perfect... no way!

Do you want facts... or alternative facts

Leroy42

Opinion is fine, but have been continually corrected and yet still seem to think that your opinion is correct.

It is clear that the basis on which your opinions are being formed are, at best, misinformed.

You should take the continued corrections as a reason to examine your information sources

Professor Moriarty

notobtuse wrote: »

I am very careful in making sure what I post is my opinion.  Although one could argue they are facts, I (at least) find it necessary when posting to avoid problems.  I'm curious... What has been shown to be false?  Examples, please.  I don't mind being corrected, and admit when I'm wrong...  I've done it several times, as I recall.  I'm far from perfect.  Opinionated, yes... obstinate... sure, but perfect... no way!

Good for you. Maybe you can answer this. Did The Donald fire Comey because of the Russia Investigation or was it for another reason?

Water John

You just said the Steele dossier was false. Where does that come from? It is an info briefing series on memos. He never claims it was absolutely accurate on all points. Intelligence gathered, never is. But any people who deal in this area as their stock in trade say, it largely rings true.

notobtuse

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I am very careful in making sure what I post is my opinion.  Although one could argue they are facts, I (at least) find it necessary when posting to avoid problems.  I'm curious... What has been shown to be false?  Examples, please.  I don't mind being corrected, and admit when I'm wrong...  I've done it several times, as I recall.  I'm far from perfect.  Opinionated, yes... obstinate... sure, but perfect... no way!

Good for you. Maybe you can answer this. Did The Donald fire Comey because of the Russia Investigation or was it for another reason?

I don't think Comey was fired just because of the Russia Investigation.  Given Comey's biases against Trump and his willingness to lie and do illegal things (like stealing and leaking classified information to the press), I could see how Comey couldn't be trusted to conduct a non-biased investigation... IMO.

Leroy42

What classified info?

And why have you decided not to believe what Trump himself stated about firing Coney? And do you use the same basis on everything he says

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't think Comey was fired just because of the Russia Investigation.  Given Comey's biases against Trump and his willingness to lie and do illegal things (like stealing and leaking classified information to the press), I could see how Comey couldn't be trusted to conduct a non-biased investigation... IMO.

What classified information did he leak? Trump makes this claim all the time. Is he talking about the memos?

Professor Moriarty

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't think Comey was fired just because of the Russia Investigation.  Given Comey's biases against Trump and his willingness to lie and do illegal things (like stealing and leaking classified information to the press), I could see how Comey couldn't be trusted to conduct a non-biased investigation... IMO.

Last year The Donald said he fired him because of the Russia Investigation. Today he said he didn't fire him because of the Russia Investigation. Which is the lie?

Water John

Donald had a moment of, mature reflection.

notobtuse

Water John wrote: »

You just said the Steele dossier was false. Where does that come from? It is an info briefing series on memos. He never claims it was absolutely accurate on all points. Intelligence gathered, never is. But any people who deal in this area as their stock in trade say, it largely rings true.

“accurate basic facts provided as bait to convince Americans that the fake info is real."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-steele-dossier-fits-the-kremlin-playbook-1517175564

notobtuse

Leroy42 wrote: »

What classified info?

And why have you decided not to believe what Trump himself stated about firing Coney? And do you use the same basis on everything he says

Some of what Comey leaked to his professor friend to get to the press about classified information regarding the ongoing investigation.

Leroy42

He leaked personnel memos. It is open question at the moment whether they are or would be classified.

Have you proof they are classified?

notobtuse

Leroy42 wrote: »

He leaked personnel memos. It is open question at the moment whether they are or would be classified.

Have you proof they are classified?

They were about an ongoing investigation done on departmental computers. They were the property of the FBI, not James Comey.  He stole the information and leaked it to the press which was against FBI code and against the law.  I don't understand why he hasn't been arrested yet.  If any average American would have done any of this we would be behind bars for decades.

Itssoeasy

notobtuse wrote: »

They were about an ongoing investigation done on departmental computers. They were the property of the FBI, not James Comey.  He stole the information and leaked it to the press which was against FBI code and against the law.  I don't understand why he hasn't been arrested yet.  If any average American would have done any of this we would be behind bars for decades.

The memos were James Comey's own contemporaneos memos from his meetings with Donald Trump, or have I missed something ?

Also, I'm sure James Comey knows how to construct a memo to make it not classified.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

You just said the Steele dossier was false. Where does that come from? It is an info briefing series on memos. He never claims it was absolutely accurate on all points. Intelligence gathered, never is. But any people who deal in this area as their stock in trade say, it largely rings true.

Yeah the author of the dosier said it was raw intelligence and would need to be refined.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

They were about an ongoing investigation done on departmental computers. They were the property of the FBI, not James Comey.  He stole the information and leaked it to the press which was against FBI code and against the law.  I don't understand why he hasn't been arrested yet.  If any average American would have done any of this we would be behind bars for decades.

From politifact:

However, Comey also testified – while under oath – that the memo in question did not contain any classified information. And he said that was not by accident.

"My thinking was if I write in such a way that I don’t include anything that’ll trigger a classification, that will make it easier to discuss within FBI and government," he said.

He explained this during the senate hearing.


Anyway, this is all immaterial. Trump didn't know about these memos until after he was fired so it didn't form a part of his reason for firing Comey.

So if it wasn't the leaks, why do you think he fired him, assuming it wasn't for the reasons that Trump already stated?

StringerBell

notobtuse wrote: »

When it comes to Donald Trump’s presidency, especially things associated with the 2016 election, I’d say discussion of Hillary Clinton’s actions during the campaign are VERY 'related matters.'

But it doesn't matter, even if HC was up to her neck in corruption and bull**** with a walk in wardrobe full of skeleton's. Right now it doesn't matter a lot, it doesn't mean that anybody else should get a pass for their own illegal actions.

Surely any reasonable person would agree that just because one person commits a crime doesn't entitled everybody to commit a crime? Why don't you start a Clinton thread to discuss all the issues you have with Clinton. No issue there at all, using but Hilary as if even if the allegations were true gives Trump some sort of pass is redundant.

It is not a defence.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

They were about an ongoing investigation done on departmental computers. They were the property of the FBI, not James Comey.  He stole the information and leaked it to the press which was against FBI code and against the law.  I don't understand why he hasn't been arrested yet.  If any average American would have done any of this we would be behind bars for decades.

From politifact:

However, Comey also testified – while under oath – that the memo in question did not contain any classified information. And he said that was not by accident.

"My thinking was if I write in such a way that I don’t include anything that’ll trigger a classification, that will make it easier to discuss within FBI and government," he said.

He explained this during the senate hearing.


Anyway, this is all immaterial. Trump didn't know about these memos until after he was fired so it didn't form a part of his reason for firing Comey.

So if it wasn't the leaks, why do you think he fired him, assuming it wasn't for the reasons that Trump already stated?

Of course he would say that.  He’s not stupid enough to give prosecutors a surefire case for arresting him.


But…

“More than half of the memos former FBI Director James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with officials familiar with the documents.”

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/341225-comeys-private-memos-on-trump-conversations-contained-classified

I'm assuming Trump fired him because he was perceived to be a liar, crooked, and politically motivated.

notobtuse

StringerBell wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

When it comes to Donald Trump’s presidency, especially things associated with the 2016 election, I’d say discussion of Hillary Clinton’s actions during the campaign are VERY 'related matters.'

But it doesn't matter, even if HC was up to her neck in corruption and bull**** with a walk in wardrobe full of skeleton's. Right now it doesn't matter a lot, it doesn't mean that anybody else should get a pass for their own illegal actions.

Surely any reasonable person would agree that just because one person commits a crime doesn't entitled everybody to commit a crime? Why don't you start a Clinton thread to discuss all the issues you have with Clinton. No issue there at all, using but Hilary as if even if the allegations were true gives Trump some sort of pass is redundant.

It is not a defence.

Actually, it is a defense.  It puts on display corruption and the double standard of justice that exists in the US, based which political party one belongs to... especially regarding Trump.  IMO

StringerBell

notobtuse wrote: »

Actually, it is a defense.  It puts on display corruption and the double standard of justice that exists in the US, based which political party one belongs to... especially regarding Trump.  IMO

Actually it still isn't a defence, and your conclusion from what you feel is a valid defence is also well open to debate to put it mildly given how Democrats and Republicans are dealt with.

"She did this stuff that's wrong" is no defence for anything anybody else did wrong. As I said, any reasonable person would acquiesce to this point at the very least

notobtuse

StringerBell wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

Actually, it is a defense.  It puts on display corruption and the double standard of justice that exists in the US, based which political party one belongs to... especially regarding Trump.  IMO

Actually it still isn't a defence, and your conclusion from what you feel is a valid defence is also well open to debate to put it mildly given how Democrats and Republicans are dealt with.

"She did this stuff that's wrong" is no defence for anything anybody else did wrong. As I said, any reasonable person would acquiesce to this point at the very least

It’s not "She did this stuff that's wrong.”  It’s why are we investigating something based on false and faulty information regarding one party, when we have what could be considered clear evidence of wrongdoing by another party and of which is being ignored.  Justice under the law should be blind as to what party someone belongs to.  But apparently it isn’t, IMO

You want to go after Trump… fine.  But the bigger and more serious crimes look to have been committed by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power, James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey and the DNC.  Shouldn’t we be going after the more serious crimes regarding Russian collusion, fixing an election and possible sedition first?  IMO

Mumha

This may help in understanding where the Mueller investigation is

notobtuse

Mumha wrote: »

This may help in understanding where the Mueller investigation is

I disagree.  Well over a year of investigations and no proof of Trump Russian/Collusion in the elections. Just a giant crap-load fishing expedition. IMO   I put forward that the graphic is the other way around.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Of course he would say that. He’s not stupid enough to give prosecutors a surefire case for arresting him.


I'm assuming Trump fired him because he was perceived to be a liar, crooked, and politically motivated.

Doubtful. His there's wouldn't be anyone left in his cabinet if that were the case. Do you think Trump was lying when he said that he fired him because of the Russia thing?

Itssoeasy

notobtuse wrote: »

I disagree.  Well over a year of investigations and no proof of Trump Russian/Collusion in the elections. Just a giant crap-load fishing expedition. IMO   I put forward that the graphic is the other way around.

The watergate investigation took over two years. God you really have drank the trump kool aid haven't you ?

Why do you seem to want to defend trump so much ?

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

Of course he would say that.  He’s not stupid enough to give prosecutors a surefire case for arresting him.


I'm assuming Trump fired him because he was perceived to be a liar, crooked, and politically motivated.

Doubtful. His there's wouldn't be anyone left in his cabinet if that were the case. Do you think Trump was lying when he said that he fired him because of the Russia thing?

LOL.  Hasn't Trump already fired a lot of his original cabinet or forced them out?

Itssoeasy

notobtuse wrote: »

Of course he would say that.  He’s not stupid enough to give prosecutors a surefire case for arresting him.


But…

“More than half of the memos former FBI Director James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with officials familiar with the documents.”

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/341225-comeys-private-memos-on-trump-conversations-contained-classified

I'm assuming Trump fired him because he was perceived to be a liar, crooked, and politically motivated.

We know why trump fired comey. He told lester holt on NBC news. He said it was because of his handling of the Russia investigation. It's on tape for all to see. He also blow out of the water the notion put forward that comey was fired on the advise of his AG and deputy AG. He said he was going to fire him anyway.

notobtuse

Itssoeasy wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I disagree.  Well over a year of investigations and no proof of Trump Russian/Collusion in the elections. Just a giant crap-load fishing expedition. IMO   I put forward that the graphic is the other way around.

The watergate investigation took over two years. God you really have drank the trump kool aid haven't you ?

Why do you seem to want to defend trump so much ?

Basically, I defend Trump because he is doing a pretty good job as POTUS.  I could do without the Twitter nonsense... then again I can see why he does it because the media is focused on his character assassination... so he has found a way to bypass the biased media filter and go directly to the people.  And I wish he wasn't such a blowhard.  But he is governing as the most conservative president in modern US history... and I would be good with that for another almost 7 years. IMO