Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

03-04-2017 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
i'm wondering if bannon calmly convinced the president that blaming obama is the best strategic political move at this juncture, or if he whips him up by suggesting these things to him and then letting him go off on twitter
So one possibility is Bannon "leaked" this to Breitbart, and Trump read it on Breitbart and got all excited about it from that. Some are speculating that this is Bannon's way of manipulating Trump rather than telling him things directly.
03-04-2017 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Listened to the podcast Intercepted and Clint Watts, a counter terrorism expert, said one thing to look out for is the White House starting to form "alternative" intelligence committees, etc like Bush did when the CIA wouldn't give him the intelligence he wanted for Iraq so he formed alternative information gathering committees out of the DoD who did give him the information he wanted.
Trump's conflict with the CIA, the FBI, the State Department and the government in general show that this is inevitable. If Trump lasts a year you won't be able to believe anything from any government agency.
03-04-2017 , 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
i feel like this is not going to be sufficient for him. watching lyndsey graham's town hall a little while ago, there was furious uproar about the russian shenanigans and rabid, seemingly unanimous support and raucous applause for what lyndsey said about getting to the bottom of it all. and it wasn't just a crowd of liberals in there, there were plenty of people applauding the idea of repealing obamacare when that topic came up. hopefully this is a signal that many republicans or at least people who voted for trump are deeply concerned about all this stuff and he is losing their support.
03-04-2017 , 12:16 PM

https://twitter.com/Karnythia/status/838058400177086464


https://twitter.com/justinaireland/s...59824030056449
03-04-2017 , 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adios
LOL is totally about politics. Is the ciity attorney a Democrat? Yep. Are the people here legally mentioned in the posts being irrational? Yep. Is this a Politics Forum? Yep. Were the posters Democrat Party supporters ? Yep. Are you a Democrat Party supporter? Yep.

Btw in 2010 5 Democrat Senators voted no on a cloture vote to end the Fillibuster of the DREAM Act in 2010, 3 Repubs voted yes, one Democrat abstained. If the Democrats that voted no would have voted yes the DREAM act passes even with the Democrat Senator abstaining. Also the Democrats increased their majority in the Senate in 2010. They never got the bill through. They're certainly not blameless for the current situation.
When the travel ban first went into effect American citizens were prohibited from entering the country and some were even sent back to the country they arrived from even though they were 100% legal.

Being worried about what might happen if you leave the country, under this administration is not even a tiny bit irrational. Maybe not every other presidency in US history but this one...yeah

Last edited by markksman; 03-04-2017 at 12:43 PM.
03-04-2017 , 12:20 PM
03-04-2017 , 12:20 PM
The American Libertarian party are just kooks who think that fluoridation was part of a government mind control program and they are virtually single issue voters on killing public schools.
03-04-2017 , 12:24 PM
Trump is also going to use blaming this on Obama as further reason to purge everybody who was ever connected to Obama or pre2017 govt in any way. Of course he'll keep guys like Comey who are actively working for his interests, but other than that you're gonna see this used to justify a massive purge of the "administrative state" so Trump can install all his own people.
03-04-2017 , 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
When the travel ban first went into effect American citizens were prohibited from entering the country and some were even sent back to the country they arrived from even though they were 100% legal.

Being worried about what might happen if you leave the country, under this administration is not even a tiny bit irrational. Maybe got every other presidency in US history but not this one,
Yup and now tons of people are stuck in limbo, not being able to visit say their dying mom in Iran because they don't know what kind of Muslim Ban will keep them from returning to their country of legal resident status on any given day with this administration.
03-04-2017 , 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
He's being uncovered and he's getting desperate and he's on major tilt right now. But he's setting up the theme of "it was a political witch hunt all along!" to defend himself when the charges are brought up eventually and he is impeached or sent to prison. He might try to sell this idea to the top brass of the military as well.
Yeah this bent on Obama seems to indicate he is really worried now and we are likely to see a deluge dumping on his head soon. He thinks by tarring obama he can mitigate the horribleness on him that is coming.

The irony of him comparing obama to Nixon should not be lost on anyone. Trump is full on nixonian paranoid.
03-04-2017 , 12:29 PM
I'd really like to see some good op-eds coming out now fiercely calling for Sessions to resign. Written by Democratic Congresscritters.
03-04-2017 , 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
Trump is also going to use blaming this on Obama as further reason to purge everybody who was ever connected to Obama or pre2017 govt in any way. Of course he'll keep guys like Comey who are actively working for his interests, but other than that you're gonna see this used to justify a massive purge of the "administrative state" so Trump can install all his own people.
Lol @ Comey working for/with TRUMP. Your high as f dude.
03-04-2017 , 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatkid
Lol @ Comey working for/with TRUMP. Your high as f dude.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._director.html
Quote:

A former chief ethics lawyer at the White House, who served during George W. Bush’s presidency, has filed an ethics complaint against FBI Director James Comey. In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Sunday, Richard W. Painter writes that he filed a complaint against the FBI for violating the Hatch Act, "which bars the use of an official position to influence an election." He filed the complaint with both the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics.

Painter, who was the head White House ethics lawyer between 2005 and 2007 and now supports Hillary Clinton, says Comey violated the Hatch Act when he sent the letter to lawmakers on Friday informing them of the newly discovered emails. “This letter, which was quickly posted on the internet, made highly unusual public statements about an FBI investigation concerning a candidate in the election,” writes Painter. “The letter was sent in violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy of not discussing specifics about pending investigations with others, including members of Congress.”

Although Comey’s previous statements may be concerning, there is no actual evidence yet that the FBI director actually wanted to influence the election. Still, that is irrelevant as far as the Hatch Act is concerned.

Painter also warns that letting this precedent stand would be dangerous:

This is no trivial matter. We cannot allow FBI or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway. That is an abuse of power. Allowing such a precedent to stand will invite more, and even worse, abuses of power in the future.

Speaking to LawNewz.com, Painter says he doesn’t buy the argument that Comey had to send the letter because he had promised to update lawmakers on the issue. The FBI director could have easily sent the letter two weeks later, after voters had gone to the polls, and no one would have been able to argue that he “breached that promise to update,” particularly considering the reports that “the FBI apparently had not even looked at the emails because they did not have a search warrant."

https://twitter.com/kkalmes2/status/837535009342836737
03-04-2017 , 12:33 PM
03-04-2017 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisGunBGud
Jesus Trump is coming apart at the seams
How is this any different from how hes been behaving pretty much forever?
03-04-2017 , 12:33 PM
comey might not be on team trump

if we assume FBI isn't cooperating with house--chair of committee was on trump transition team, ie anything he says to him is gonna immediately be known by trump. There's a reasonable explanation here to why he would not.

Maybe he's just a russian and wants to burn it all, who f'ing knows at this point, all sorts of possibilities.
03-04-2017 , 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hornbug
LOL

if you really felt any wire tapping was perfectly legal, you wouldn't have to try to personally defend Obama from personal responsibility here.
LOL

considering that POTUS literally lacks the authority to order a wiretap, what are you claiming is obama's responsibility?
03-04-2017 , 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
Isn't there a huge difference between "Obama wire tapped my phone" and "the FBI got a FISA warrant to examine Trump's ties with Russia"?
Yes but trump is dumb.

Although I am game to revisit that if any of the previous trump intelligence defenders want to argue he is not dumb.

Last edited by markksman; 03-04-2017 at 12:45 PM.
03-04-2017 , 12:37 PM
Yeah I know Comey is a partisan but he will not be protecting Orange with respect to the Russians. As I'm sure you know, cuz your a self appointed genius, any case vs the President needs to be on lock before you bring it. So if your still building it you are not going to say a peep.


Haha pulled from The_Donalt comment section:

Quote:
i'm pretty sure the president wouldn't be freestyling right now on twitter if he didn't have slam dunk evidence. sessions probably found some good ****
03-04-2017 , 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
All the reporting I saw says the same thing. That Comey is a stand up guy that got put in an impossible situation and chose poorly. I don't think that makes him doing the bidding of Trump though.
03-04-2017 , 12:39 PM
Quote:
Yeah I know Comey is a partisan but he will not be protecting Orange with respect to the Russians. As I'm sure you know, cuz your a self appointed genius, any case vs the President needs to be on lock before you bring it. So if your still building it you are not going to say a peep.
I'll accept that your line of reasoning is plausible. But I still don't trust the guy.
03-04-2017 , 12:40 PM
Obama can't just wiretap trump either for funsies but Trump or his followers won't know such things.
03-04-2017 , 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
All the reporting I saw says the same thing. That Comey is a stand up guy that got put in an impossible situation and chose poorly. I don't think that makes him doing the bidding of Trump though.
Yeah, he stood up and violated the Hatch Act by acting in a direct political fashion. It only makes it worse to know that he was investigating TRUMP at the same time as his shameful political actions, let's not forget, during the voting period. He interfered in that election just like Putin did and he is a criminal to the United States.
03-04-2017 , 12:42 PM
Memory guys...this only happened a few months ago. Don't forget about stuff like this.

Former Bush Ethics Lawyer Files Complaint Against FBI Director for Email Disclosures
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._director.html
Quote:
8.4k
819
622
By Daniel Politi
450436516-director-james-comey-testifies-during-a-hearing-before
FBI Director James Comey testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., on June 11, 2014.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

A former chief ethics lawyer at the White House, who served during George W. Bush’s presidency, has filed an ethics complaint against FBI Director James Comey. In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Sunday, Richard W. Painter writes that he filed a complaint against the FBI for violating the Hatch Act, "which bars the use of an official position to influence an election." He filed the complaint with both the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics.

Painter, who was the head White House ethics lawyer between 2005 and 2007 and now supports Hillary Clinton, says Comey violated the Hatch Act when he sent the letter to lawmakers on Friday informing them of the newly discovered emails. “This letter, which was quickly posted on the internet, made highly unusual public statements about an FBI investigation concerning a candidate in the election,” writes Painter. “The letter was sent in violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy of not discussing specifics about pending investigations with others, including members of Congress.”

Although Comey’s previous statements may be concerning, there is no actual evidence yet that the FBI director actually wanted to influence the election. Still, that is irrelevant as far as the Hatch Act is concerned.

Painter also warns that letting this precedent stand would be dangerous:

This is no trivial matter. We cannot allow FBI or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway. That is an abuse of power. Allowing such a precedent to stand will invite more, and even worse, abuses of power in the future.

Speaking to LawNewz.com, Painter says he doesn’t buy the argument that Comey had to send the letter because he had promised to update lawmakers on the issue. The FBI director could have easily sent the letter two weeks later, after voters had gone to the polls, and no one would have been able to argue that he “breached that promise to update,” particularly considering the reports that “the FBI apparently had not even looked at the emails because they did not have a search warrant.”
03-04-2017 , 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hornbug
LOL

if you really felt any wire tapping was perfectly legal, you wouldn't have to try to personally defend Obama from personal responsibility here.
1. wiretapping is legal

2. obama didn't order the wiretapping


these are both facts

      
m