|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 06 2017 03:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Can Obama sue for defamation if it all turns out to be bollocks? Probably not. It's really hard to win defamation suits when's you're a public figure.
Crazily enough, it might not be impossible to win that one. iirc you have to proof not only that it's a malicious falsehood, but that they knew it was a malicious falsehood at the time, right? Since Trump supposedly receives regular briefings on national intelligence, it might not be impossible to review the intelligence he received and prove he knew it wasn't true.
Still probably not, since he might be able to claim he was talking about the earlier reported wiretaps, or maybe none of the intelligence he received specifically denied the existence of a wiretap of Trump Tower, or any number of other technicalities that could get in the way. Still crazy to think that despite how high that burden of proof is, it might actually be possible to meet it here (assuming, of course, that there was in fact no illegal wiretap).
|
On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: Show nested quote +On March 05 2017 03:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A good number of tweets that make a good point:
You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. Show nested quote +On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it?
Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else.
|
On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines.
POTUS judging prematureley. Great.
|
On March 06 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it? Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else.
Okay, we don't know which. In each case what he's doing is bad, and your response to criticism has been to deflect to one of the other cases. If all the scenarios are bad, it's not a defense to say "maybe it's not that scenario, maybe it's another one."
|
On March 06 2017 05:02 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it? Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else. Okay, we don't know which. In each case what he's doing is bad, and your response to criticism has been to deflect to one of the other cases. If all the scenarios are bad, it's not a defense to say "maybe it's not that scenario, maybe it's another one."
Or why don't we wait and see what happens over the next week before jumping to any conclusions?
|
|
|
On March 06 2017 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 05:02 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it? Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else. Okay, we don't know which. In each case what he's doing is bad, and your response to criticism has been to deflect to one of the other cases. If all the scenarios are bad, it's not a defense to say "maybe it's not that scenario, maybe it's another one." Or why don't we wait and see what happens over the next week before jumping to any conclusions?
Because the most obvious conclusion is probably the correct one. Trump has a history of seeing stories on the news and talking about them. Sweden is the obvious example here.
|
On March 06 2017 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 05:02 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it? Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else. Okay, we don't know which. In each case what he's doing is bad, and your response to criticism has been to deflect to one of the other cases. If all the scenarios are bad, it's not a defense to say "maybe it's not that scenario, maybe it's another one." Or why don't we wait and see what happens over the next week before jumping to any conclusions?
Glad to see you're holding US citizens to a higher standard than their president.
Well, I guess you also think Trump isn't a US citizen, so it makes sense.
|
If that's true, Ihave to say that it's not only his emotional stability and his narcissism that i find problematic with DT, but I will have to start to really question his intelligence. I mean it's intellectual skill level 101 to chose which source you should trust and react upon, and if Breitbart, Infowar and Fox are good enough for him, he simply really isn't a smart man at all, which is really, really surprising considering the fact he reached that position.
Ironically, in that case, the propaganda post factual media that got him elected will mess up his presidency more than any opponent could dream of. Propaganda is great until the moment you start believing it yourself, at which point it's a liability of disastrous proportions.
|
On March 06 2017 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 05:02 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it? Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else. Okay, we don't know which. In each case what he's doing is bad, and your response to criticism has been to deflect to one of the other cases. If all the scenarios are bad, it's not a defense to say "maybe it's not that scenario, maybe it's another one." Or why don't we wait and see what happens over the next week before jumping to any conclusions?
Maybe because nothing happened all the other times he overreacted on twitter about some blog post or fox segment he had seen the previous night? Over the next week he'll do the same with a different topic and the current one will be just another in a long list of instances that have shown his lack of discernment
|
It's incredibly tragic that we're no longer allowed to simply write Trump off as a snobby, loony, ignorant conspiract theorist and have to actually fact-check his nonsense now because of the presidential power he wields. He's the token racist, crazy grandparent who you just nod and smile at while he rants about kooky bullshit, and then you turn back to the rest of the family and roll your eyes and talk to them about which nursing home to send him when he can no longer go to the bathroom on his own. This is just absurd.
|
Roger Stone, a confidant to President Donald Trump and former adviser to his campaign, acknowledged late Saturday that he had a “back channel” to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, amid mounting reports that multiple advisers to Trump’s campaign had undisclosed communication with Russian officials.
”Never denied perfectly legal back channel to Assange who indeed had the goods on #CrookedHillary,” Stone wrote Saturday night.
Stone later deleted the tweet, along with several other offensive tweets, including posts where he called various women “fat [and] stupid” and “you stupid ignorant ugly bitch.”
Stone admitted in October that he had “back-channel communication with Assange” after WikiLeaks began releasing the hacked emails of John Podesta, campaign chairman for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
“I do have a back-channel communication with Assange, because we have a good mutual friend,” Stone said in October. “That friend travels back and forth from the United States to London and we talk. I had dinner with him last Monday.”
Stone denied having direct contact with Assange himself.
In August, even before the emails were released, Stone alluded to “Podesta’s time in the barrel.”
Last week, Stone sneered at the ongoing FBI investigation into the Trump team’s ties to Russia, calling it a “witch hunt.”
“Sure, they’ll get my grocery lists,” he said. “They may get the emails between my wife and I, but here’s what they won’t get ― any contact with the Russians.”
The New York Times reported last month that Stone is one of several Trump advisers under FBI investigation for contact with Russian officials.
But Stone denied that he was being investigated, telling NBC that “they won’t find anything of this nature.”
“They’d be pretty bored if they wanted to look at my e-mails or transmissions because they won’t find anything of this nature,” he said. “I have no Russian clients. I’ve never been in touch with anyone in Russia.”
Source
|
On March 06 2017 05:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It's incredibly tragic that we're no longer allowed to simply write Trump off as a snobby, loony, ignorant conspiract theorist and have to actually fact-check his nonsense now because of the presidential power he wields. He's the token racist, crazy grandparent who you just nod and smile at while he rants about kooky bullshit, and then you turn back to the rest of the family and roll your eyes and talk to them about which nursing home to send him when he can no longer go to the bathroom on his own. This is just absurd.
Even his hardened supporters started touting the line "take him seriously, not literally" to try and mitigate the fact that he has absolutely no credibility to account for. You'd have to be a fanatic at this point to take the president of the United States at his word. What a world. Degrading the prestige of the office one day at a time.
|
I still wish more proposals were put forth publicly and loudly to help prevent debacles like this election from occurring again.
|
On March 06 2017 06:06 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 05:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It's incredibly tragic that we're no longer allowed to simply write Trump off as a snobby, loony, ignorant conspiract theorist and have to actually fact-check his nonsense now because of the presidential power he wields. He's the token racist, crazy grandparent who you just nod and smile at while he rants about kooky bullshit, and then you turn back to the rest of the family and roll your eyes and talk to them about which nursing home to send him when he can no longer go to the bathroom on his own. This is just absurd. Even his hardened supporters started touting the line "take him seriously, not literally" to try and mitigate the fact that he has absolutely no credibility to account for. You'd have to be a fanatic at this point to take the president of the United States at his word. What a world. Degrading the prestige of the office one day at a time.
Just watch this thread and you will see that Trump has already lost the support of some of the people who voted for him.
Not much to say other than "this is what happens when you promote one of the worst candidates in history and face her off against a goddamn clown." Turned out to be so electable that pussy grabbing didn't kill him.
|
On March 06 2017 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 05:02 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it? Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else. Okay, we don't know which. In each case what he's doing is bad, and your response to criticism has been to deflect to one of the other cases. If all the scenarios are bad, it's not a defense to say "maybe it's not that scenario, maybe it's another one." Or why don't we wait and see what happens over the next week before jumping to any conclusions?
While there's a special irony in arguing to wait for all the facts before judging in this case, it's not necessarily a bad idea. I'll ask this, though: in the fairly likely case that Trump produces no evidence or clarification at all (much like the birther stuff, or the alleged 3-5 million illegal voters), and just moves on to the next news cycle, are you comfortable condemning the baseless accusation?
|
On March 06 2017 06:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:06 Tachion wrote:On March 06 2017 05:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It's incredibly tragic that we're no longer allowed to simply write Trump off as a snobby, loony, ignorant conspiract theorist and have to actually fact-check his nonsense now because of the presidential power he wields. He's the token racist, crazy grandparent who you just nod and smile at while he rants about kooky bullshit, and then you turn back to the rest of the family and roll your eyes and talk to them about which nursing home to send him when he can no longer go to the bathroom on his own. This is just absurd. Even his hardened supporters started touting the line "take him seriously, not literally" to try and mitigate the fact that he has absolutely no credibility to account for. You'd have to be a fanatic at this point to take the president of the United States at his word. What a world. Degrading the prestige of the office one day at a time. Just watch this thread and you will see that Trump has already lost the support of some of the people who voted for him. Not much to say other than "this is what happens when you promote one of the worst candidates in history and face her off against a goddamn clown." Turned out to be so electable that pussy grabbing didn't kill him.
hillary wasn't one of the "worst" candidates in history, just one of the least popular. just semantic quibbling.
it's also possible trump would've won against someone else too. we shouldn't presume that wasn't a possibility.
|
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump.
|
On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump.
No you don't; you just need to be a traditionally establishment candidate running during a time when people are fed up with actual politicians.
|
On March 06 2017 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. No you don't; you just need to be a traditionally establishment candidate running during a time when people are fed up with actual politicians.
That, and give every reason for people to hate you on top of it.
DNC chair colluded to win you the primaries and is now getting ousted by leaks that prove intent as such? Let's put her on the campaign team!
Afterwards, pretend that a Putin-Comey alliance, rather than a personal failure, was responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
