|
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 May 17 2017 07:05 biology]major wrote:
Let's take the possibility that this investigation will be closed without any charges pressed against any of Trump's associates. What will the left do? What will the liberal media do? This is quite the gamble, I mean go ahead and report but it's clear if that scenario comes to fruition it will be a repeat of election day with obvious disdain on every outlet. From then on Trump will be the most powerful president to ever live imo, since the media will have lost so much credibility/ momentum/ammunition
No one will trust those results. Trump has muddied the waters with the Comey firing and other issues that a lack of charges will be meet with the same skepticism as Clinton not being charged.
|
My take away from the Clinton thing was that she probably deserved to be charged, but that she was extremely unlikely to be convicted. In effect all that would have happened is that it would have knocked her out of the race. I still think that Comey would have been much more likely to indict had her opponent not been Donald Trump.
|
On May 17 2017 07:19 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 07:05 biology]major wrote:
Let's take the possibility that this investigation will be closed without any charges pressed against any of Trump's associates. What will the left do? What will the liberal media do? This is quite the gamble, I mean go ahead and report but it's clear if that scenario comes to fruition it will be a repeat of election day with obvious disdain on every outlet. From then on Trump will be the most powerful president to ever live imo, since the media will have lost so much credibility/ momentum/ammunition The Trump - Russia tie the last bullet in the so-called "Liberal" (which they are not) controlled medias have.
What does this even mean, and isn't Fox one of the most popular news networks? It's certainly conservative, although a network doesn't have to be partisan to point out Trump's errors.
Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 07:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I just decided to pop into the US thread since it is hot news at the moment (but when is it not with Donald Trump around?) and I am just suprised at people defending Donald Trump's actions. Like jeez, there's nothing wrong with revealing top secret intelligence information out of the blue and there's nothing wrong with asking the director of the FBI to drop an investigation? Really? Honest to god, there is nothing totally catastrophic to American security and democracy with this? If he really did leak the source and the Russians end up leaking the source to Islam fundamentalists, then yes that's bad news for the source. But the Potus isn't breaking any laws here.
Something can be catastrophic without it being illegal, and the only reason why it's not illegal and job-ending is because Trump is the president so his mistakes and ignorance frequently are legally cleared, even though he still becomes more and more impeachable and immoral and bad for the United States every single day.
|
On May 17 2017 07:05 biology]major wrote:
Let's take the possibility that this investigation will be closed without any charges pressed against any of Trump's associates. What will the left do? What will the liberal media do? This is quite the gamble, I mean go ahead and report but it's clear if that scenario comes to fruition it will be a repeat of election day with obvious disdain on every outlet. From then on Trump will be the most powerful president to ever live imo, since the media will have lost so much credibility/ momentum/ammunition
Then we wait for the next scandal. Very much looks like 4 years of none stop scandals, at some point Trump is going to fuck up enough to get thrown out.
That or he has a complete change of personality.
|
Apparently this NYT memo is the tip of the iceberg of Comey memos about every single meeting and phone call with Trump, some of which are classified, and all of which are recorded within the FBI. Trump better hope he can produce those (illegal) tapes to contradict the memos.
|
On May 17 2017 07:34 Nevuk wrote:
My take away from the Clinton thing was that she probably deserved to be charged, but that she was extremely unlikely to be convicted. In effect all that would have happened is that it would have knocked her out of the race. I still think that Comey would have been much more likely to indict had her opponent not been Donald Trump.
If the FBI charged a presidential candidate during an election, they best convict them or expect whatever the FBI to not exist in a couple years after that. And maybe have people rioting too.
It would have been irresponsible to bring charges if the case wasn’t iron clad. It could undermine US elections for decades.
|
On May 17 2017 07:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Apparently this NYT memo is the tip of the iceberg of Comey memos about every single meeting and phone call with Trump, some of which are classified. Trump better hope he can produce those (illegal) tapes to contradict the memos.
They are reporting that Trump also ask Comey to consider jailing reporters
|
On May 17 2017 07:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Apparently this NYT memo is the tip of the iceberg of Comey memos about every single meeting and phone call with Trump, some of which are classified, and all of which are recorded within the FBI. Trump better hope he can produce those (illegal) tapes to contradict the memos.
'Nobody could have known threatening an FBI director on twitter could end up this complicated'
Does it really matter if it's legal or not? It's a clear abuse of power asking the FBI director something like that. Not to mention Yates told them Flynn was compromised by Russia and Trump calls him a good guy. Combine this with his every day show of incompetence, and it should be more than enough reason for any sane politician to want him gone.
|
Trump asked Comey to stop the investigation - it's obstruction. He said "I hope you can let this go".
|
he didn't explicitly say "i want this investigation stopped", but i think a reasonable person would say it was implied
|
On May 17 2017 07:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump asked Comey to stop the investigation - it's obstruction. He said "I hope you can let this go".
The Republican defence, as stated in this thread is "He asked, he didn't order". I'm sure that will go over well.
|
On May 17 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:02 zlefin wrote:On May 17 2017 05:51 Danglars wrote:On May 17 2017 05:27 zlefin wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Danglars wrote:On May 17 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 04:55 NewSunshine wrote:On May 17 2017 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 04:41 Leporello wrote:On May 17 2017 04:35 xDaunt wrote:
The irony is that far more damage is being caused by all of these intelligence sources leaking shit to the press about what Trump may or may not have told the Russians than whatever Trump actually told the Russians. Hopefully the new FBI director has a pair and goes after the leakers. Sure, dude. It's totally cool that Trump gives Israeli intelligence to one of their most historical enemies, which is awash in anti-semitism. He's totally allowed, just like he's totally allowed to destroy all our alliances and run around the White House buck-naked. Somewhere, Ronald Reagan's corpse just vomited. You know it's true. The presumption underlying this post is astounding. You don't know exactly what was shared. Like I mentioned yesterday, there a ton of things that are classified that might be appropriate to share with Russia depending upon the circumstances. For all we know, this information shared could be required to be disclosed under the ICAO. Where is the rule or law that the US prohibited from sharing any intelligence with Russia? That's right: there isn't one for reasons that should be readily apparent to everyone. It's not the role of the intelligence community to make half-assed leaks that are designed purely to harm the president. If there really is something that the public needs to know about, then they should go full Snowden. But no, that's clearly not what this is about. This 100% politics. Of course, few liberals are going to admit that. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html?smid=tw-shareThe information is believed to be pertaining to ISIS, but beyond that we don't know. Whether or not Russia deliberately uses it against Israel is beside the point, it's very sensitive information that was classified for a reason. The fact that it's out due to Trump's incompetence means Israel has little reason to trust us going forward, as do a lot of other countries. But make this about liberals, please. Your partisanship is showing. Is there one liberal around here who understands that I'm not the one making the argument that the information should be spun one way or another? Has this thread really fallen this far? I think you know the answer to that question. It's been going on for five months now. It's getting really old. I'm not spinning this, you are! I'm not being partisan about this, you are! Trump's actually bad enough that you don't have to make up and spin facts to attack him. Selective, anonymous leaking is actually bad enough that you don't have to care who is in the White House to attack it. I started out ambivalent, but now I think Trump really will fire many in his administration and hold-overs because no CEO can tolerate this junk for long. no country shoudl have to tolerate a leader this incompetent either; and yet here we are. it certainly does seem true trump will fire a lot of people though; no great surprise. the board of directors needs to step up and fire this ceo already. Nah, I think Trump's in there for good. Nothing impeachable thus far and forget about getting a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Pence won't be on board for any acting Pres change. It shouldn't need to be said again but Trump is elected for a four year term so tolerate away; staffers in the administrative state have no such protection. there's some borderline impeachable stuff maybe with the emoluments clause; but agreed not really much of a case for impeachment yet. Pence will go for acting pres change if necessary, but he'd be highly reluctant to pull the trigger unless it gets really bad. a 2/3 vote in the senate is likewise possible but it's quite aways still from the point where republicans are willing to do it. cowards. If it's borderline "maybe" and it hasn't gotten "really bad" yet, how are you calling them cowards again? Everybody's showing good sense at them moment on this issue in both House and Senate. Show nested quote +staffer protection varies; high-level posts are often easier to fire iirc, as they serve at the pleasure of the president; lower level positions are covered under different rules and firing lower level federal employees can be rather hard iirc.
yes, trump was indeed elected for a four year term by fools who chose to harm our country and/or had no idea what they were doing; so we're stuck tolerating it and trying to fix the damage.
it indeed didn't need to be said again, so not sure why you said it; I guess for rhetorical flourish, which it does do well.
still pretty decent odds trump won't last 4 years (last I checked the betting sites at least). of course in an actually good system trump wouldn't have gotten in in the first place; I wish we had such a system. Wow.
it's "really bad" from the perspective of actual harm done to institutions; the thing is there's just so many levels of really bad, there's not a good set of language to describe it clearly; what I meant was, pence will be reluctant to pull the trigger unless it gets defcon 2 (or thereabouts) bad or enough people get fed up wtih trump to believe it's better to kick him out; or trump goes really straight-jacket level insane.
they're cowards because they'll wait until long after they should've pulled the trigger to pull it. whether that point has already happened or not; they'll ignore the good of the country and just focus on protecting their careers. also because they're not taking enough proper action already. and aren't looking at trump nearly as hard as they should, too many have interfered with investigations and such.
wow indeed, a sad state of affairs.
|
Personally when someone with the capacity to fire me says "I hope you let X go" I always completely ignore them and don't let it impact my job prioritization at all
|
On May 17 2017 07:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 07:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump asked Comey to stop the investigation - it's obstruction. He said "I hope you can let this go". The Republican defence, as stated in this thread is "He asked, he didn't order". I'm sure that will go over well.
No, Trump didn't even ask. He expressed a hope. I don't see any question marks.
|
On May 17 2017 07:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
he didn't explicitly say "i want this investigation stopped", but i think a reasonable person would say it was implied
The words that were used matter less than how Comey took the discussion. If Comey felt it was a threat, then it is. Comey's actions after the discussion clearly support it that argument. His firing after detailing the investigation of Flynn to congress also backs it up. The deputy FBI director also testified before congress in a manner that says "I won't work for the FBI much longer".
On May 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 07:44 Gorsameth wrote:On May 17 2017 07:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump asked Comey to stop the investigation - it's obstruction. He said "I hope you can let this go". The Republican defence, as stated in this thread is "He asked, he didn't order". I'm sure that will go over well. No, Trump didn't even ask. He expressed a hope. I don't see any question marks.
"You love your parents, don't you?" can be a threat under the right set of circumstances. There is nothing about Comey's behavior after that meeting that says he took it as a joke or request. He knew he was getting fired over the Flynn investigation.
|
I can't help but think that isn't the only conversation Comey had with Trump about this. Am I supposed to believe they had this conversation, then Trump fired him? There's gotta be a middle conversation.
|
On May 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 07:44 Gorsameth wrote:On May 17 2017 07:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump asked Comey to stop the investigation - it's obstruction. He said "I hope you can let this go". The Republican defence, as stated in this thread is "He asked, he didn't order". I'm sure that will go over well. No, Trump didn't even ask. He expressed a hope. I don't see any question marks.
Yes the president of the US just innocently said "I hope".
|
On May 17 2017 07:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 07:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
he didn't explicitly say "i want this investigation stopped", but i think a reasonable person would say it was implied The words that were used matter less than how Comey took the discussion. If Comey felt it was a threat, then it is. Comey's actions after the discussion clearly support it that argument. His firing after detailing the investigation of Flynn to congress also backs it up. The deputy FBI director also testified before congress in a manner that says "I won't work for the FBI much longer".
What are the odds that Trump fires the deputy FBI director as well?
|
On May 17 2017 06:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Plansix knows more about handling classified information than a woman who was a senator who served for 6 years on the armed services committee and was then Sec. of State for 5 years. Plansix also knows more about handling classified information than the current president of the United States.
Why did we have to choose between two such horrible people in 2016?
one of them was far less horrible than the other; and was far better at handling classified info than the other. so it's not really a fair comparison.
also, becasue the system is setup to measure support, not to measure opposition.
things like approval voting would fix that.
|
On May 17 2017 07:50 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Plansix knows more about handling classified information than a woman who was a senator who served for 6 years on the armed services committee and was then Sec. of State for 5 years. Plansix also knows more about handling classified information than the current president of the United States.
Why did we have to choose between two such horrible people in 2016? one of them was far less horrible than the other; and was far better at handling classified info than the other. so it's not really a fair comparison. also, becasue the system is setup to measure support, not to measure opposition. things like approval voting would fix that.
If approval voting was used in primaries wouldn't the US system be kinda close to France's?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
