|
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. |
United States43964 Posts
On May 17 2017 09:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Tachion wrote:On May 17 2017 05:16 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Not necessarily. It depends upon what Trump told Russia. Saying "we are hearing that Russia is going to be attacked" is very different than "Russia is going to be attacked and this is how we know it [and what follows is a full disclosure of the source of the intelligence]." This my big problem with these leaks. We don't know what was shared, so all that's left is innuendo. And it's the innuendo that is being reported on and seized by the public. Regardless of what Trump actually told the Russians, why would any intelligence agency share anything with the US when it can see that our intelligence apparatus is leaking like a sieve? Do you realize by now that the leaks are just a symptom, and that Trump is the cause? The frequency of leaks with this administration is absolutely incredible. Can you see why that is? What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics. Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? And yet, knowing it will get out that Flynn is a foreign agent, he (Trump) then proceeds to publicly announce his support for Flynn? Am I getting this right?
And he had to keep Flynn in his current job, despite the fact that he was planning to fire him for being a foreign agent, because it takes a while to check these things out and you don't want to be too hasty with this kind of thing. It's important to justify the fact that after Trump knew that Flynn was a foreign agent he still kept him in the classified briefings.
|
On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Tachion wrote:On May 17 2017 05:16 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Not necessarily. It depends upon what Trump told Russia. Saying "we are hearing that Russia is going to be attacked" is very different than "Russia is going to be attacked and this is how we know it [and what follows is a full disclosure of the source of the intelligence]." This my big problem with these leaks. We don't know what was shared, so all that's left is innuendo. And it's the innuendo that is being reported on and seized by the public. Regardless of what Trump actually told the Russians, why would any intelligence agency share anything with the US when it can see that our intelligence apparatus is leaking like a sieve? Do you realize by now that the leaks are just a symptom, and that Trump is the cause? The frequency of leaks with this administration is absolutely incredible. Can you see why that is? What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics. Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence?
Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate.
|
The fact that Jason Chaffetz is asking for a subpeona on the memos means this is really bad for Trump
|
On May 17 2017 09:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:25 Doodsmack wrote:You're simply dishonest, you've jumped the shark of partisan bias, if you think Trump was only innocently saying "I hope". Comey was in the Oval Office briefing the President along with the vice president and attorney general on February 14, according to a source close to Comey who has a copy of the memo. After the briefing, Trump "asked Sessions and Pence to leave," the source told CNN.
According to a memo, Comey wrote about the encounter and shared with confidantes, the President said: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." www.cnn.com I didn't say Trump was innocent. In fact, I specifically said that I wouldn't be surprised if evidence did come out showing that Trump fired Comey to impede the investigation. Pay attention.
You said he's just making observations, saying I hope, and you implied the statements are innocuous. It just defies reality at this point.
|
shit, maybe chaffetz just really likes investigations or something
|
|
|
At this rate, Comey is about to be the most hated individual by both Clinton and Trump.
|
United States43964 Posts
On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Tachion wrote:
[quote]
Do you realize by now that the leaks are just a symptom, and that Trump is the cause? The frequency of leaks with this administration is absolutely incredible. Can you see why that is? What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics. Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate.
This just gets better and better.
Trump is told that Flynn is a security risk.
Trump doesn't know whether Trump is actually a security risk so has to do an incredibly thorough investigation into whether or not he's a security risk before he takes action because due diligence, due diligence which will take until the day after it leaks.
Trump already knows that Flynn wasn't a security risk so keeps him in the national security briefings.
Trump knows deep down that there's no problem and endorses Flynn.
It leaks that Flynn is a foreign agent.
Trump's incredibly thorough investigation concludes and tells him that this is a problem so he fires Flynn.
How is it that Trump simultaneously needed time to thoroughly investigate the claim and that time just happened to take him past when it leaked while also knowing ahead of time that there wasn't anything to it and that Flynn was fine and wouldn't be fired and could continue to sit in the briefings?
|
On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Tachion wrote:
[quote]
Do you realize by now that the leaks are just a symptom, and that Trump is the cause? The frequency of leaks with this administration is absolutely incredible. Can you see why that is? What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics. Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate.
What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place?
Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief.
|
|
|
Doesn't mean much when he is an independent and not a Republican.
Warn me when Mitch McConnell floats the idea.
|
On May 17 2017 09:42 biology]major wrote:
At this rate, Comey is about to be the most hated individual by both Clinton and Trump.
Comey to Trump (in Batmans voice): "I made you, and I can also unmake you!"
|
On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics. Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief.
Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied.
|
Chaffetz getting in on this is a downturn for Trump.
|
United States43964 Posts
On May 17 2017 09:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
you forgot the bit where obama and yates told them flynn was a risk
No, xDaunt explained that.On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:
[Trump knew] Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story.
That's why Flynn was judged to not be a security risk and was allowed to continue to serve.
Meanwhile in reality B
On May 17 2017 09:18 xDaunt wrote:
[Trump was] taking a few weeks to corroborate her story on Flynn. On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:
Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate.
What you need to understand is that Trump knew that Flynn was fine and that there was no reason to fire Flynn which is why he had to do a very thorough investigation into whether Flynn was fine which just happened to conclude around the time that it leaked that Flynn was a foreign agent.
|
United States43964 Posts
On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied.
Dude you were asked about the leaks causing the firing an hour ago and you denied any link and argued Trump was probably going to fire him anyway. Come on. Get your shit together Spicey.
On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities.
|
On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied.
And he wasn't toxic (to the WH) when he was an undeclared foreign agent who lied to the VP and had been potentially compromised by foreign intelligence?
You understand this is the whole point right? Without the leaks (or some other big gaff) Trump would have never fired an undeclared foreign agent on the National Security Council.
|
|
|
On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Flynn only got fired because of the leaks. The Trump White House knew that their national security advisor was a foreign agent but felt like that wasn't a problem. I'm amazed you're this obtuse. Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied.
We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up.
|
On May 17 2017 09:42 biology]major wrote:
At this rate, Comey is about to be the most hated individual by both Clinton and Trump.
If I may indulge in a useless post for just a moment
+ Show Spoiler +
But in all seriousness, bring on President Pence! This only ends well. Ok well not really, but it could have ended worse. I think what Trump said looks too much like "who will rid of this troublesome priest?" Although the answer in this case is, "I will."
At 5 months in I'm hoping for more competence, not less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
