Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

Are we going to ignore all the people who have been fired or demoted from the FBI & DoJ? That number is in the dozens the last time I checked. The lead investigators, Strzok, McCabe and so on were all fired.

AG Horrowitz report on the origins of the Trump campaign spying/investigation whatever you want to call it will be released soon.

None of those cases should be ignored in any intended investigation. Indeed, the capricious firing of both Comey and Mc Cabe certainly deserve impartial investigation.

You say that 'in the dozens' of people have been fired or demoted last time you checked. I recall Comey, Mc Cabe, Strzok, Paige related to the Trump/Russia thing, and Yates because of her unwillingness to process the Muslim Ban. Maybe my memory is failing me, or does your dozens cover everyone fired / demoted in the normal course?

peddlelies

TomOnBoard wrote: »

None of those cases should be ignored in any intended investigation. Indeed, the capricious firing of both Comey and Mc Cabe certainly deserve impartial investigation.

You say that 'in the dozens' of people have been fired or demoted last time you checked. I recall Comey, Mc Cabe, Strzok, Paige related to the Trump/Russia thing, and Yates because of her unwillingness to process the Muslim Ban. Maybe my memory is failing me, or does your dozens cover everyone fired / demoted in the normal course?

McCabe was fired by Horowitz who was an Obama appointee and is the inspector general. Dozens resigned from the FBI/DoJ surrounding the investigation - I see it as the same thing. To add to your names for those who were fired there was Bruce Ohr in the justice department, who's wife was working for Fusion GPS.

Yates supposedly unmasked Americans hundreds of times in the lead up to the election but she says she had no recollection if it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/19/criminal-charges-recommended-for-fired-fbi-official-andrew-mccabe.html

"The Department of Justice received a referral recommending criminal charges against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a legal source familiar with the issue told NBC News Thursday.

The referral recommended charging McCabe with lying to federal investigators.

CNN, which first reported the referral, said it was sent by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The DOJ will decide whether to charge McCabe with a crime."

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

None of those cases should be ignored in any intended investigation. Indeed, the capricious firing of both Comey and Mc Cabe certainly deserve impartial investigation.

You say that 'in the dozens' of people have been fired or demoted last time you checked. I recall Comey, Mc Cabe, Strzok, Paige related to the Trump/Russia thing, and Yates because of her unwillingness to process the Muslim Ban. Maybe my memory is failing me, or does your dozens cover everyone fired / demoted in the normal course?

McCabe was fired by Horowitz who was an Obama appointee and is the inspector general. Dozens resigned from the FBI/DoJ surrounding the investigation - I see it as the same thing. To add to your names for those who were fired there was Bruce Ohr in the justice department, who's wife was working for Fusion GPS.

Yates supposedly unmasked Americans hundreds of times in the lead up to the election but she says she had no recollection if it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/19/criminal-charges-recommended-for-fired-fbi-official-andrew-mccabe.html

"The Department of Justice received a referral recommending criminal charges against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a legal source familiar with the issue told NBC News Thursday.

The referral recommended charging McCabe with lying to federal investigators.

CNN, which first reported the referral, said it was sent by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The DOJ will decide whether to charge McCabe with a crime."

So you're saying that there were dozens fired or demoted due to some wrongdoing. Who were they? Where are the dozens?

If I was Comey, Mc Cabe and Yates, I'd welcome an impartial investigation. And yes, if the Ohrs did something wrong, that ought to be investigated in a similarly impartial way.

Specifically, re Mc Cabe, he was targeted by Trump from day 1, due to Trump's hatred of McCabes wife having stood as a Democrat in an election on a healthcare platform (for which she was highly qualified) and having received Dem election campaign funding. Trump's needling of Mc Cabe and public pronouncements about him were hugely prejudicial to his case and the way he was fired 2 days before his retirement so he could never collect his hard-earned pension was an abominably inhuman act on Trump's part.

peddlelies

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Specifically, re Mc Cabe, he was targeted by Trump from day 1,

His wife, while she was running for office, received over a hundred thousand dollars from a Clinton lackey, Terry Mcauliffe. That was against FBI rules and it all went on while Clinton was being investigated.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

His wife, while she was running for office, received over a hundred thousand dollars from a Clinton lackey, Terry Mcauliffe. That was against FBI rules and it all went on while Clinton was being investigated.

How was it against FBI rules that Jill Mc Cabe received an entirely legal contribution from a PAC controlled by McAuliffe? Was she prohibited from seeking elected office simply because her husband worked for the FBI? How would FBI policies/rules cover the legitimate democratic actions of a private citizen, not employed by the FBI?

BTW, still awaiting details of the 'dozens'....

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

McCabe was fired for lying, it had nothing to do with Trump. To the best of my knowledge that was done by independent investigators.

There's dozens of Strzok texts showing how he went limp on Clinton but was gung-ho for Trump. We can pretend one side is totally innocent and were doing their job and the others are all liars but it's not the reality of the situation at all.

These were the people at the head of the FBI.

If anything wrong was done, i welcome any perpetrator getting justice.

However, the narrative that the investigation was bogus is nonsense for a number of factual reasons. Please feel free to correct me on any point.

1) two people were having an affair. It's irrelevant and trump of all people bringing that up in a pejorative sense is hypocrisy on steroids

2) they had anti-Trump feelings. So had a sh1t load of people in 2016. I posted a video a few pages back of Graham saying on tv the same or worse than those texts

3) contributions to hillary - unless that breaks the law, so what. Should any person who contributed to Trump stay from any investigation into him? Btw Trump also contributed to the Clintons previously

4) the release of the texts did nothing to incriminate either of them. What it did show was the genuine belief held at that time that something appeared really wrong with the trump campaign and its direct with Russia, which were being lied about.

5) to *not* investigate a crime would be a dereliction of duty. Moaning that they spied on Trump is nonsense. If nothing was going on, then what exactly was the problem.

6) and this is the proverbial clincher, if the FBI wanted to torpedoe Trump's campaign
A) they had the information to do it. Why did they not release it?
why, if they wanted Hillary to win, did Comey say what he said when he said it. I have yet to hear a cogent argument to that point.

7) Trump won! Why not use the two years the Reps had both houses and the WH to direct the necessary investigations and accept the findings and move on. Focus on 2020!
The reason why is because its political strategy to undercut law enforcement so that any criminal findings against trump can be put down to deep state nonsense. It is as clear as day.

I'm sure there are more but it's early and am not quite awake.

You need to dissociate between perception and fact. Anti trump people had to accept the findings of the mueller report, regardless of whether they fit the perception of what was going on. You should too.

Need I remind you - Comey was a Republican, Mueller, McCabe, Rosenstein etc etc. Why is it you think they all wanted Hillary to win?

The only answer I hear from Trump supporters is that they were anti-Trump. Well, there's a phrase which roughly goes as follows....

If you walk down the street and meet an a-hole, that's unfortunate.

However, if all you meet all day are a holes, turns out you're the a hole.

The point being Trump supporters' logic is that every.single.person. is corrupt, wrong, biased, lying, incompetent.... apart from Trump. Do you see how likely that is?

FrostyJack

everlast75 wrote: »

The point being Trump supporters' logic is that every.single.person. is corrupt, wrong, biased, lying, incompetent.... apart from Trump. Do you see how likely that is?

He is a compulsive liar, with over 10,000 provable lies, a proven cheat on taxes, people that worked for him, his wives, an all round bad actor, yet when he says one thing that suits his supporters agenda, no mater how much mental gymnastics it takes to believe the position, like deep state going against him or life long Republicans going in favour of Clinton, it must be true. I cannot get my head around it. If it was in a movie you would be shouting at the screen how people are falling for it. It is like the cults where people let the leader sleep with their wife, "he can't be just doing it for his own benefit, it must be a higher calling".

Midlife

FrostyJack wrote: »

yet when he says one thing that suits his supporters agenda, no mater how much mental gymnastics it takes to believe the position, like deep state going against him or life long Republicans going in favour of Clinton, it must be true. I cannot get my head around it.

Anyone who can string two senses together knows that they can't rationally argue Trump is correct, decent or honest.

peddlelies wrote: »

I never said Trump was innocent or a good person as far as morals go, I've said the opposite many times. Mafia links, probably extremely shady business dealings ( I think this will eventually get him if his taxes ever get out ), screwing decent people out of money and so on. The Russia collusion theory is all I've ever defended him on because that's what the investigation was based on and I didn't think it was true. I think the way that investigation was handled and Clinton's are polar opposites. If there's a new investigation tomorrow on how he recovered in the early nineties and where the money came from there's no way I'd suspect he was innocent of wrongdoing.

Like I genuinly can't understand why given the above opinion of the man someone would change their signature to support him and then spend all their time arguing for him.

I think it's something to do with hating the clintons and obama or maybe percieved liberals in general more? I don't understand though.

Midlife

What is of massive concern to anyone who actually give a sh1t about the state of US politics long term is that Trump with Barr is now approaching politics and oversight the way he approached business.

You investigate me, I'll investigate you.

You legally ask me for something, I'll sue you for something.

So now the us will forever find itself in the situation where

1: Presidents don't need to answer to anyone
2: Politicians and political appointees don't need to answer questions or produce documents or anythng like that
3: Legel opinions are completly subjective

if you thought it was swampy before, wait and see wher this brings the US.

FrostyJack

Midlife wrote: »

3: Legal opinions are completly subjective

This is the main issue going forward, think of any criminal act, a murder lets say. One side will see a cold blooded premeditated murder, the other will see a man defending his neighbourhood from a blackman who looks shifty, oh wait this has already happened. There are no grey areas anymore in US politics. Trump isn't the cause of this, he is a symptom of it. I can't see anyway out it without a Dr Manhattan/Independence Day type event occuring which is unlikely. Historically people like the Nazi's or Commie Red's were the uniting force but now they are not only tolerated but admired on one side. Look at this week with Barr, you have people running around with AR15's citing the constitution as the word of god but now completely ignore it, or think it isn't important when subpoenas are on the table. Madness.

jochenstacker

Midlife wrote: »

Anyone who can string two senses together knows that they can't rationally argue Trump is correct, decent or honest.

Like I genuinly can't understand why given the above opinion of the man someone would change their signature to support him and then spend all their time arguing for him.

I think it's something to do with hating the clintons and obama or maybe percieved liberals in general more? I don't understand though.

I have often said, anyone who still supports Trump, it's not because they don't see the truth, it's precisely because of the type of person Trump is.
People who support him do so because he's a liar, a grifter and a bully and what does that say about them?
Either they're fully behind a crook or they have a sub 50 IQ and can't see the truth.

SeamusFX

peddlelies wrote: »

His wife, while she was running for office, received over a hundred thousand dollars from a Clinton lackey, Terry Mcauliffe. That was against FBI rules and it all went on while Clinton was being investigated.

This is ironic, considering all Republicans receiving money from Russia via the NRA. Where McCabe’s wife received legal and legitimate campaign donations.

amandstu

Wonder what Trump and Putin are so pally** about? Carving up Ukraine and South America?

**I am assuming its pally ,would anyone know directly?

manual_man

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Barr refused to appear, not because he feared a group of elected officials questioning him as you have mis-stated; rather he feared that it would not be the elected officials, but a professional lawyer who would ask questions on behalf of the Committee.

You’ve (rather unwittingly I would imagine) summed it up there. The Democrats are only interested in show trials and propagandizing and basically looking to abuse the congressional powers they have to further “spin” their anti-Trump narrative. It’s a tactic(and a bad one at that) they’re using essentially to target Trump relentlessly ahead of 2020. It’s their 2020 campaign if you will.They are absolutely pathetic, completely unfit to serve, completely deranged. Most regular people are sickened by their antics, they’re inability/unwillingness to work on the things that are most important to Americans in their day to day lives. This is just the latest of their stunts Demanding that Barr testify in front of an unelected lawyer(of their choice) when Barr is charged with no crime and is under no requirement to testify in any case(unless they do go down the subpoena road - good luck with that). If you ask me, Nadler & co just realized how bad they looked after Barr’s senate hearing so decided to pull this ridiculous lawyer stunt, knowing quite well Barr would (rightfully) refuse to play along in their show trial theatre.

Investigations ongoing into how the special counsel was set up, the spying by Obama DOJ on Trump’s campaign, as well as the myriad of leaks of confidential information that have taken place since Trump took office.

The Democrats have played this terribly. As soon as Trump took office, they should have determined to winning back the many voters they lost in 2020 with common sense policy driven positivity. Instead they peddled nonstop Russiagate conspiracy nonsense and generated insane levels of hysteria.

Danzy

manual_man wrote: »

You’ve (rather unwittingly I would imagine) summed it up there. The Democrats are only interested in show trials and propagandizing and basically looking to abuse the congressional powers they have to further “spin” their anti-Trump narrative. It’s a tactic(and a bad one at that) they’re using essentially to target Trump relentlessly ahead of 2020. It’s their 2020 campaign if you will.They are absolutely pathetic, completely unfit to serve, completely deranged. Most regular people are sickened by their antics, they’re inability/unwillingness to work on the things that are most important to Americans in their day to day lives. This is just the latest of their stunts Demanding that Barr testify in front of an unelected lawyer(of their choice) when Barr is charged with no crime and is under no requirement to testify in any case(unless they do go down the subpoena road - good luck with that). If you ask me, Nadler & co just realized how bad they looked after Barr’s senate hearing so decided to pull this ridiculous lawyer stunt, knowing quite well Barr would (rightfully) refuse to play along in their show trial theatre.

Investigations ongoing into how the special counsel was set up, the spying by Obama DOJ on Trump’s campaign, as well as the myriad of leaks of confidential information that have taken place since Trump took office.

The Democrats have played this terribly. As soon as Trump took office, they should have determined to winning back the many voters they lost in 2020 with common sense policy driven positivity. Instead they peddled nonstop Russiagate conspiracy nonsense and generated insane levels of hysteria.

While a dead end politically lt provides an outlet for them. Easier to blame Russia, Mossad, the proles, than self reflection.

There are people who genuinely believe America is going to be a dictatorship in years to come.

How do you deal with that?
The cultists are continuously gaining ground in the Democrats.

Do the Democrats want to win or appease fanatical wings.

listermint

Danzy wrote: »

While a dead end politically lt provides an outlet for them. Easier to blame Russia, Mossad, the proles, than self reflection.

There are people who genuinely believe America is going to be a dictatorship in years to come.

How do you deal with that?
The cultists are continuously gaining ground in the Democrats.

Do the Democrats want to win or appease fanatical wings.

Yet it's amazing how scared the GOP are of the likes of ocasia Cortez.

We now see turmoil inside the NRA.

The wheels are falling off the old it's the economy stupid... People are now realising that health care education and climate change are a real concern.


The GOP have been nothing but complacent on all three things.


Watch that space

peddlelies

This is a good article on the hill detailing efforts by the DNC to solicit dirt on the Trump campaign from the Ukrainians during the 2016 election.

Politico originally reported similar dealings back in 2017. I wonder if the Democrats will make a big deal out of it, I suspect not.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016

"In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.

In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country, in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress."

Danzy

listermint wrote: »

The wheels are falling off the old it's the economy stupid... People are now realising that health care education and climate change are a real concern.


The GOP have been nothing but complacent on all three things.


Watch that space

Good to see things like that coming to the fore.

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

This is a good article on the hill detailing efforts by the DNC to solicit dirt on the Trump campaign from the Ukrainians during the 2016 election.

Politico originally reported similar dealings back in 2017. I wonder if the Democrats will make a big deal out of it, I suspect not.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016

"In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.

In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country, in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress."

Care to rebut any of the points I made earlier?

peddlelies

everlast75 wrote: »

Care to rebut any of the points I made earlier?

What, do I need to read your posts first to validate my own?

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't read every post you make, or take much notice in general.

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

What, do I need to read your posts first to validate my own?

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't read every post you make, or take much notice in general.

No but everytime someone challenges you, you fail to respond. Good to see I'm not the only one

peddlelies

duploelabs wrote: »

No but everytime someone challenges you, you fail to respond. Good to see I'm not the only one

Challenge me on what exactly, the DNC were digging for dirt from the Ukrainians?

I've already said what I think about the Clinton + Trump investigations. Look at the text messages from Strzok who was leading both investigations. They went soft on Clinton and were gung-ho for Trump. It's in black and white writing. IG Horrowitz said what went on wasn't by the book and was unprecedented. The IG is an Obama appointee. Listen to the below clip. I doubt many here even bothered to listen to that hearing.

McCabe was deputy director of the FBI. His wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Terry McCauliffe and he was investigating Clinton. The WSJ printed an article about it and once the investigation was over he "recused" himself. Then he started leaking stories to the press trying to cover himself and make himself look good. That's why he was fired, he lied about being the source of the leaks.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

What, do I need to read your posts first to validate my own?

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't read every post you make, or take much notice in general.

By way of underlining your last statement, with which I fully agree, it seems to me that you don't "take much notice in general" of what anyone says here if/when they present facts that rebut spurious points you just throw out and then can't stand over. Re- presenting unsubstantiated talking points a la Laura Ingraham or Sean Hannity, rather than fact-based reports a la Shepard Smith or Judge Napolitano (just to keep things in the Fox News realm) adds nothing to intelligent debate here.

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

How are her poll numbers doing?

The average American sees through it, she'll never be President or even get close.

Here!

You're asked three times how was this relevant to her questioning of Barr and you scuttled off only to respond to a question you're never asked

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

Challenge me on what exactly, the DNC were digging for dirt from the Ukrainians?

I've already said what I think about the Clinton + Trump investigations. Look at the text messages from Strzok who was leading both investigations. They went soft on Clinton and were gung-ho for Trump. It's in black and white writing. IG Horrowitz said what went on wasn't by the book and was unprecedented. The IG is an Obama appointee. Listen to the below clip. I doubt many here even bothered to listen to that hearing.

McCabe was deputy director of the FBI. His wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Terry McCauliffe and he was investigating Clinton. The WSJ printed an article about it and once the investigation was over he "recused" himself. Then he started leaking stories to the press trying to cover himself and make himself look good. That's why he was fired, he lied about being the source of the leaks.

See? My point exactly

PropJoe10

duploelabs wrote: »

Here!

You're asked three times how was this relevant to her questioning of Barr and you scuttled off only to respond to a question you're never asked

I'm not sure if their username is attempt at irony or what.

TomOnBoard

Axios & WaPo are reporting that a 'tentative date' of 15th May has been set for Mueller to give testimony before the House Judiciary Ctte.

They should use the same single questioner approach intended for Barr, not because Mueller will try to run down the 5 minute clock for every questioner but to maintain flow and prevent showboating by any Congressman/woman.

EDit: its later been clarified that the 15th is the date the Ctte wants; Muellers team haven't agreed to that date yet.

amandstu

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Axios & WaPo are reporting that a 'tentative date' of 15th May has been set for Mueller to give testimony before the House Judiciary Ctte.

They should use the same single questioner approach intended for Barr, not because Mueller will try to run down the 5 minute clock for every questioner but to maintain flow and prevent showboating by any Congressman/woman.

Mueller can't be considered a hostile witness by any stretch of the imagination .The jury is out on Barr.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1125057816992145414?s=19

And this is why Mueller, McGhan need to appear before the House.

Its hard to compete with twitter when the alternative is to ask people to read 400+ pages

TomOnBoard

Trump has now tweeted that he doesn't want Mueller speaking to Congress at all, despite saying previously that he'd leave it for Barr to decide.

So now expect the mud slinging against Mueller's bona fides to ramp up over the coming days.