|
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. |
Fired FBI director James Comey recently asked the Justice Department to provide more resources to the bureau's counterintelligence investigation of possible connections between President Trump's campaign team and Russian officials, a source told Fox News Wednesday.
The Justice Department repeatedly denied Wednesday that Comey had asked for more resources for the Russia probe.
The source said Comey met with Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Mark Warner, D-Va., — the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate intelligence committee — to discuss the ongoing probe Monday, the day before he was fired by Trump.
During their meeting, Burr and Warner pressed Comey to speed up the investigation. The source suggested Comey then went to the Justice Department to ask for more manpower to help with the inquiry.
www.foxnews.com
|
On May 11 2017 06:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 05:55 biology]major wrote:On May 11 2017 05:51 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 05:40 biology]major wrote:On May 11 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis. Uhh that investigation concluded before the election. When I said I'd concluded, I actually am reopening it - Comey, October 28th The new trove of emails didn't turn up anything new, guys - Comey, November 6th Election, November 8th it was a hypothetical, imagine if it didn't conclude. What would your reaction be? Similar to how you feel now? You can examine just how partisan you are by answering this question. I can't imagine Comey would've opened that can of worms if he didn't think he could wrap it up before the election. I imagine there would be furor from the Republicans, it would pass, and it wouldn't be a constitutional crisis. If you've got somebody other than a partisan hack draft the explanation and it laid out as good of a case as Mr. Rosenstein's, I wouldn't have a problem (with that specific firing). No fucking way, if hillary clinton fired comey without the conclusion of her email investigation, every right leaning poster in this thread would have fucking lost it. Even if the ag was jesus and wrote a masterful explanation for the firing. Particularly with reports of the new york times saying comey asked for extra resources for the russia investigation (so imagine him asking for more resources for the clinton investigation, and then shortly thereafter being removed). edit: comey testified last week and explained that he reopened the investigation without knowing if it would conclude or not. He was told by agents it MIGHT be possible if they worked day and night until the election. Ok so there's that testimony. "Tell me what you would do in this hypothetical situation. You can examine just how partisan you are by answering this question." "No fucking way, if hillary clinton fired comey without the conclusion of her email investigation, every right leaning poster in this thread would have fucking lost it." Thanks for the quick reminder why these hypotheticals are always bullshit. The answer you don't expect means you don't trust It. The answer you expect means you trust it. I really thought better of you biologymajor. I really did.
Given the way you've posted in the past about Hillary's e-mails, you would've lost your shit.
Don't try to pretend that you're some paragon of virtue that you'd forgive Hillary for doing a similar thing to what Trump is doing now.
|
On May 11 2017 06:43 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 06:09 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 05:55 biology]major wrote:On May 11 2017 05:51 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 05:40 biology]major wrote:On May 11 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis. Uhh that investigation concluded before the election. When I said I'd concluded, I actually am reopening it - Comey, October 28th The new trove of emails didn't turn up anything new, guys - Comey, November 6th Election, November 8th it was a hypothetical, imagine if it didn't conclude. What would your reaction be? Similar to how you feel now? You can examine just how partisan you are by answering this question. I can't imagine Comey would've opened that can of worms if he didn't think he could wrap it up before the election. I imagine there would be furor from the Republicans, it would pass, and it wouldn't be a constitutional crisis. If you've got somebody other than a partisan hack draft the explanation and it laid out as good of a case as Mr. Rosenstein's, I wouldn't have a problem (with that specific firing). No fucking way, if hillary clinton fired comey without the conclusion of her email investigation, every right leaning poster in this thread would have fucking lost it. Even if the ag was jesus and wrote a masterful explanation for the firing. Particularly with reports of the new york times saying comey asked for extra resources for the russia investigation (so imagine him asking for more resources for the clinton investigation, and then shortly thereafter being removed). edit: comey testified last week and explained that he reopened the investigation without knowing if it would conclude or not. He was told by agents it MIGHT be possible if they worked day and night until the election. Ok so there's that testimony. "Tell me what you would do in this hypothetical situation. You can examine just how partisan you are by answering this question." "No fucking way, if hillary clinton fired comey without the conclusion of her email investigation, every right leaning poster in this thread would have fucking lost it." Thanks for the quick reminder why these hypotheticals are always bullshit. The answer you don't expect means you don't trust It. The answer you expect means you trust it. I really thought better of you biologymajor. I really did. Given the way you've posted in the past about Hillary's e-mails, you would've lost your shit. Don't try to pretend that you're some paragon of virtue that you'd forgive Hillary for doing a similar thing to what Trump is doing now.
I'll pardon your incredulity. It's widely accepted that every conservative poster is a closet hypocrite on everything and I'd hate to spoil such ideological preconceptions. Incidentally, consider none of Comey, Trump, or Clinton come out clean in any of this; it matters when Hillary makes the same firing choice or the same executive order.
|
Apparently no US press or photographers were given access to the Presidents meeting with the Russian official today. The Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs was allowed to bring their own photographer into the West Wing.
The former deputy director of the CIA does not believe this was a smart idea at all.
|
|
|
Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article..
|
On May 10 2017 23:38 Doodsmack wrote:
This clip is pretty amazing
the way he shakes his head and eye rolls as he leaves makes it seem like he's annoyed with how stupid that decision is in the context of what's going on with everything. I don't want to place too much thought on that analysis but it was certainly funny. He has to know how bad this looks regardless of any legitimately nefarious undertones.
|
On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article..
NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed.
|
On May 11 2017 07:31 crms wrote:the way he shakes his head and eye rolls as he leaves makes it seem like he's annoyed with how stupid that decision is in the context of what's going on with everything. I don't want to place too much thought on that analysis but it was certainly funny. He has to know how bad this looks regardless of any legitimately nefarious undertones.
Yeah, you can see him turn away to leave. Snap his head back when he hears the comment and just shake his head like "how can he be this stupid".
|
United States43611 Posts
On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed.
Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you?
|
|
|
On May 11 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed. Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you?
NYT doesn't even try to hide its bias, and the WSJ is getting there. Look, all I want is my news with an attempt at being unbiased and objective. If you want your news to confirm your worldview and nothing more then NYT would be a fine source.
|
United States43611 Posts
On May 11 2017 07:39 HalcyonRain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed. Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you? NYT doesn't even try to hide its bias, and the WSJ is getting there. Look, all I want is my news with an attempt at being unbiased and objective. If you want your news to confirm your worldview and nothing more then NYT would be a fine source.
Have you considered that they might be reporting the objective truth (at least outside of the editorials) and that your bias might be rejecting it?
|
On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed.
It's got some issues. I'm not sure it ever really recovered credibility from having a reporter basically copy the Bush administrations lies on Iraq without question, and be the primary method for deceiving the american public. .
My parents gave up on WSJ when it seemed like Karl Rove was a permanent member of their editorial staff, but that was quite a few years later.
There's plenty of room for criticism from both sides on those papers.
|
On May 11 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:39 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed. Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you? NYT doesn't even try to hide its bias, and the WSJ is getting there. Look, all I want is my news with an attempt at being unbiased and objective. If you want your news to confirm your worldview and nothing more then NYT would be a fine source. Have you considered that they might be reporting the objective truth and that your bias might be rejecting it?
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were outright lying, I've no doubt that for the most part they'll be telling the truth. But they'll twist and spin things just a little, to make someone they don't like look worse, or to make someone they like look good. They certainly aren't as bad as something like Breitbert or Huffpo, but NYT does lean left, where I would prefer little to no lean. And yes, I'm biased against bias so I'm likely to view NYT more negatively than I should.
|
United States43611 Posts
On May 11 2017 07:48 HalcyonRain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:39 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed. Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you? NYT doesn't even try to hide its bias, and the WSJ is getting there. Look, all I want is my news with an attempt at being unbiased and objective. If you want your news to confirm your worldview and nothing more then NYT would be a fine source. Have you considered that they might be reporting the objective truth and that your bias might be rejecting it? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were outright lying, I've no doubt that for the most part they'll be telling the truth. But they'll twist and spin things just a little, to make someone they don't like look worse, or to make someone they like look good. They certainly aren't as bad as something like Breitbert or Huffpo, but NYT does lean left, where I would prefer little to no lean. And yes, I'm biased against bias so I'm likely to view NYT more negatively than I should.
So presumably you view yourself as perfectly centrist and therefore anyone on either side of you must have a left/right bias.
|
@thelordofawesome
I'm surprised you didn't hear about the russia issues before teh election. they'd been covered quite extensively both here and in various news media.
I remember back then, and examination of his russian ties was done quite alot; I guess you just didn't hear about it somehow, but it was most certainly there.
|
The russian stuff was treated as one of the smaller things about him until really late into the election (last month or so). The server in his tower was very strange though.
|
|
|
On May 11 2017 05:07 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 05:06 zlefin wrote:On May 11 2017 05:00 biology]major wrote:On May 11 2017 04:49 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 04:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 04:13 biology]major wrote:
ashamed for voting for this dude, not that it even matters but shoulda just stayed at home on election day. Same. I should've written in Mattis. Not sure you can really pretend that you didn't see this coming before you voted. It's not like he hid who he was. He ran on being exactly the kind of person you're now saying you're ashamed to have voted for. He's doing exactly what he promised he would. To me this reeks of ![[image loading]](https://pics.onsizzle.com/adrian-bott-cavalorn-never-thought-leopards-would-eat-my-face-8342078.png) My honest expectation was a presidential pivot. Even a small correction. Instead he tweets out obama wiretap claims and fires comey... why would you have expected a presidential pivot? I thought it might happen for awhile, but by the main debates it was pretty clear that he wasn't going to be doing pivots. If someone is going to pivot, they'd start doing it after winning the primary, that they don't is a good indication. also numerous indications that he was who he was and that it wasn't going to change, for good or ill. and pretty clear he doens't play politics by the same system, so expecting a typical politican thing of him like a pivot shouldn't be done. Stepping in the oval office, looking at the history and portraits of previous presidents, being responsible for the lives of others in combat. Talking to the family members of fallen soldiers. All of these should humble a person to the ground.
and they should also show some of that humility before they actually step into the office; when they're campaigning. and he did not.
it seems odd to expect such a thing to happen when there were numerous earlier times for it to happen and it did not; and the information on his character being quite set was well established.
c'est la vie
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
